The Bombay High Court, in its judgment on 25 September 2024, addressed a dispute involving tribal petitioners in the case of Mulidhar Mahadu Pichad and Anr. vs Kaluram Hendyra Katkari. The case revolved around the purchase of agricultural land by non-tribal individuals from a tribal community, following a registered deed and Non-Agricultural (NA) permission granted by the Collector under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC). However, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) later set aside the mutation entry under Section 257 of the MLRC.
Dispute Over Tribal Land Transfer
The petitioners argued that converting the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use exempted it from the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (BTAL) Act and the restrictions under Sections 36 and 36A of the MLRC. They also claimed that the SDO’s revision, done five years after the mutation, was beyond a reasonable period, which should be three years.
The respondents argued that NA status does not nullify the need for Collector’s prior permission for land transfer and that unauthorized construction and hotel business were taking place on the tribal land.
Court’s Ruling on Tribal Land Provisions
The Court affirmed the SDO’s powers to exercise suo motu revisions when the mutation entry is illegal or incorrect. While acknowledging the three-year period as reasonable, the Court clarified it is not inflexible, especially when dealing with tribal land. It stressed that land owned by tribals retains its status under tribal protections, irrespective of land use changes.
The Court further emphasized that despite the land’s conversion, the sale was invalid because Collector’s consent was not obtained, making the transfer of the land legally void. The 7/12 land extract showed the land as tribal, and therefore, Sections 36 and 36A continued to apply.
Revision Powers of Superior Authority
The petitioners also argued that the respondents incorrectly pursued a revision application before the Additional Commissioner instead of a second appeal. The Court rejected this, citing Section 257 of the MLRC, which allows for unqualified review powers by superior authorities.
Final Orders
The Court ruled in favor of the respondents, upholding the SDO’s actions. The stay in the case was extended for six weeks.