Revised statutory regime under Section 37A MLRC empowers State to levy transfer charges on all Government land grants.

The Respondents (original Petitioners) purchased a commercial unit in "Raheja Centre," Nariman Point, which was built on land leased by the State to a builder through a competitive bid process

In 2018, the Collector demanded ₹25,38,518/- as transfer charges/premium for issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the sale

The Respondents paid under protest and filed a Writ Petition, claiming the demand was illegal as the land was not allotted at a concessional rate to a Co-operative Society

On 13/12/2019, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition in favor of the Respondents based on a concession by the Government Advocate that the case was covered by Aspi Chinoy v. State of Maharashtra, which restricted such levies

The State subsequently filed this Review Petition in 2024, arguing the concession was inadvertent and ignored a significant change in the statutory regime

1. Whether the State Government is empowered to demand transfer charges/premium for the transfer of a unit in a building standing on Government land despite the ruling in Aspi Chinoy.

2. Whether the insertion of Section 37A and the amendment to Section 295 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC) creates a statutory basis for such demands that overrides prior judicial precedents based on executive resolutions.

Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (introduced in 2015), which mandates prior State permission and payment of premium/unearned income for any sale or transfer of Government land, including buildings or parts thereof

Section 295 of the MLRC (as amended in 2016), which specifically governs the disposal of foreshore lands in Mumbai and authorizes the levy of transfer fees

Decision in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Maharashtra, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 37A

Principle from P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arunmugham, establishing that the omission to cite a specific source of power does not invalidate an order if the power exists

The earlier decision in Aspi Chinoy was based on the interpretation of Government Resolutions from 1983 and 1999, which were limited to lands granted at concessional rates to Co-operative Societies.

The introduction of Section 37A in 2015 fundamentally altered the legal landscape by providing a broad statutory definition of "Government land" that includes buildings and individual units.

Section 37A applies to all Government lands regardless of the original purpose of the grant or whether the grant was made at a concessional or market rate.

A mistaken legal concession cannot bind the State against a clear statutory mandate although the Government Advocate previously conceded the case was covered by Aspi Chinoy.

Government Resolution dated 07/07/2017 constitutes a "General Order" under Section 37A(2), validly fixing the rates for transfer charges.

The Court allowed the Review Petition, set aside the order dated 13/12/2019, dismissed the original Writ Petition No. 1462 of 2019, thereby validating the Collector’s demand for ₹25,38,518/-, and disposed of the Contempt Petition accordingly.