Section 43 transfer restrictions do not apply to land purchased via ownership certificates issued under Section 32M.

The petitioners purchased 57.8 R of land in Gut No. 314 on April 12, 1993, from a tenant who had acquired ownership through tenancy proceedings

The purchase price for the subject land had been determined under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the "Act"), and ownership certificates were subsequently issued under Section 32M of the Act

Respondent No. 1 filed an application for forfeiture of the land, leading the Tenancy Avval Karkun to forfeit the land to the Government under Section 84C on December 23, 1997

While the Sub-Divisional Officer initially regularized the transaction upon payment of Nazrana, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("Tribunal") set aside that relief and restored the forfeiture order

The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's orders dated October 31, 2017, and July 10, 2019, in the present Writ Petition.

The court primarily interpreted the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Section 32M, which governs the issuance of a certificate of purchase and serves as conclusive evidence of purchase

Section 43, which mandates previous sanction from the Collector for transfers of land purchased under specific sections including 32, 32F, 32-I, 32-O, 33-C, or 43-ID

Chapter III-AA (including Section 43-1D), which contains special provisions for the termination of tenancy by landlords who are or have been members of the armed forces

The court conducted a literal interpretation of the statutory language in Section 43.

It observed that while Section 43 lists several sections (32, 32F, etc.) that trigger the requirement for Collector's permission before transfer, Section 32M is conspicuously absent from this list

Since the ownership certificate in this matter was undisputedly issued under Section 32M and had attained finality, the court reasoned that the statutory restrictions on transfer contemplated by Section 43 do not apply to such transactions

Regarding the respondents' contention on Section 43-1D, the court found that this provision is confined to cases involving landlords from the armed forces under Chapter III-AA

As there was no evidence or claim that the parties involved were members of the armed forces, Section 43-1D was held entirely inapplicable

Consequently, the court found that the Tenancy Avval Karkun and the Tribunal misapplied the law by imposing a requirement for prior permission that did not exist for Section 32M certificate holders

It answered the second issue in the negative, finding Section 43-1D inapplicable to the parties

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the orders of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated October 31, 2017, and July 10, 2019, as well as the Tenancy Avval Karkun’s order dated December 23, 1997

Rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioners