Bombay High Court
Kamlakar Bhalchandra Khaladkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:37919
Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9748 OF 2023
Kamlakar Bhalchandra Khaladkar .....Petitioner
: Versus :
State of Maharashtra and anr. ....Respondents
Dr. Ramdas P. Sabban with Mr. Pravin Sabban for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader with Ms. M.S. Srivastava,
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Dnyandeo D. Shinde, for
Respondent No.3.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON : 2 SEPTEMBER 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 11 SEPTEMBER 2025.
JUDGMENT :-
1) The Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 23 February 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), Pune Bench dismissing Application No. P/XII/1/2019 in which he had challenged the order dated 1 November 2019 passed by the Collector, Pune rejecting his application for return of land on account of Page No.1 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC failure to put the same for bonafide industrial use under Section 63-1A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Tenancy Act). By the same Order dated 23 February 2023, the MRT has also allowed Revision Application Nos. P/XII/5/2019 and P/II/1/2020 filed by third Respondent thereby setting aside Collector's direction in order dated 1 November 2019 for levy of penalty as well as order dated 13 January 2020 levying the penalty of Rs.13,29,06,000/-.
2) Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the petition are as under :-
Petitioner owned three pieces of land bearing Survey Nos. 621, 624/1 and 759 at Village-Kolvihire, Taluka-Purandar, District-Pune. By registered Sale-Deed dated 16 March 1994, Petitioners sold the part of the subject land to M/s. Crossland Research Laboratories Ltd.
(Crossland). Thereafter, by another registered Sale-Deed dated 23 February 1995, Crossland purchased the balance land at Survey Nos.
624/2 and 622 from the Petitioner. This is how the total area of the land purchased by Crossland became 13 Hectares 24 Ares (the subject land).
3) Section 63-1A was introduced in Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in the year 1994 under which an agricultural land can be sold to a non-agriculturist for bonafide industrial use. Accordingly, Crossland submitted an application to the Collector seeking permission for purchase of the subject land for being put to bonafide industrial use. By order dated 31 January 1995, Development Commissioner (Industries), Government of Maharashtra granted Page No.2 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC permission to Crossland for purchase of the subject land subject to the condition that the purchased land would be put to industrial use within a period of five years from the date of purchase failing which the person from whom the land was purchased would have right to repurchase the land at the price for which it was originally sold. In the permission dated 31 January 1995, details of land used was indicated as 'for manufacturing of bulk drugs' .
4) By Scheme of Amalgamation, Crossland was amalgamated into Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Ranbaxy). Ranbaxy sold the subject land to Adinath Agro Process Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.3) by Sale-Deed dated 12 April 2010. It appears that permission of the Competent Authority was not obtained before executing the Sale-Deed dated 12 April 2010. Respondent No.3 secured permission for non- agricultural use of the subject land from Collector on 29 July 2013. Petitioner filed an application before the Collector, Pune on 18 May 2018 seeking return of the subject land on account of failure by Crossland, Ranbaxy and Respondent No.3 to put the land to bonafide industrial use. By order dated 1 November 2019, Collector rejected Petitioner's application by holding that Crossland had carried out construction on the subject land and that therefore Petitioner was not entitled to seek return of the land. Accordingly, Petitioner's application was rejected. However, Collector held that the subject land was sold by Ranbaxy to Respondent No.3 after completion of period of 15 years without securing prior permission of the Competent Authority and that Page No.3 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC therefore Respondent No.3 was liable to pay penalty. The Collector accordingly directed computation of amount of penalty payable by Respondent No.3. In pursuance of order dated 1 November 2019 directing levy of penalty, the Additional Collector passed further order dated 13 January 2020 holding that purchase of the subject land by Respondent No.3 was in violation of Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act and for regularising the purchase of the subject land, penalty of Rs.13,29,06,000/- was payable. Respondent No.3 was directed to pay the penalty amount within a period of 30 days.
5) Petitioner filed Application No. P/XII/1/2019 challenging Collector's order dated 1 November 2019 to the extent of rejection of his application for return of land. Respondent No.3 filed two separate applications before the MRT. By Application No. P/XII/5/2019, order dated 1 November 2019 was challenged to the extent of direction for levy of penalty. In Application No. P/II/1/2020 Respondent No.3 challenged Additional Collector's order dated 13 January 2020 directing payment of penalty of Rs.13,29,06,000/-. All the three Revision Applications (Application No. P/XII/1/2019, Application No. P/XII/5/2019 and Application No. P/II/1/2020) were heard together by MRT and by common judgment and order dated 23 February 2023, MRT has dismissed Petitioner's Revision Application No. P/XII/1/2019 and has thereby confirmed the Collector's decision not to return the land to the Petitioner. MRT has allowed both the Revision Application Nos. P/XII/5/2019 and P/II/1/2020 thereby setting aside Collector's Page No.4 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC direction in order dated 1 November 2019 for levy of penalty as well as order dated 13 January 2020 levying the penalty of Rs.13,29,06,000/-. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23 February 2023 passed by the MRT and has accordingly filed the present petition.
6) Dr. Sabban, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that MRT has grossly erred in rejecting Petitioner's Revision Application ignoring the position that Crossland had violated the provisions of Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act by not putting the purchased land for bonafide industrial use. That initial purchase was made without the permission of the Competent Authority. That though the Competent Authority granted permission on 31 January 1995, the permission was specifically for industrial activity of 'manufacturing of bulk drugs'. That admittedly, Crossland did not commence the activity of manufacturing of bulk drugs on the subject land. That the permission contemplated repurchase of the land by the Petitioner at the same cost in the event of failure to put the land to bonafide industrial use. That the Sanad dated 28 February 1996 is a forged document as the Gaon Kamgar Talathi has given a statement of not signing the same. That Petitioner has lodged FIR in respect of forgery in the Sanad dated 28 February 1996. That admittedly Crossland did not secure electricity connection or procured license from Food and Drugs Administration. That therefore mere construction of some structure on the land cannot be treated as commencement of industrial use by Crossland. That Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act Page No.5 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC does not recognise the concept of procurement of non-agricultural use permission (N.A. permission) and what must be demonstrated is actual manufacturing activities for the purpose of inferring bonafide industrial use by the purchaser. That the amalgamation of Crossland into Ranbaxy thereby resulting in transfer of assignment of rights in the land from Crossland to Ranbaxy was itself in violation of the provisions of Tenancy Act, as well as Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code). That further illegality was committed by selling the land to Respondent No.3 in the year 2010 without actually starting any industry on the subject land. That purchase of the land is used by Crossland and Ranbaxy only for the purpose of profiteering. The fact that N.A. permission was issued in favour of Respondent No.3 on 29 July 2013 clearly shows non-use of the land for industrial purposes prior to the said date. That Respondent No.3 is not a manufacturer of drugs but is engaged in the business of agro-processing food manufacturing activities. That therefore Respondent No.3 cannot be permitted to use the land for different purposes other than the one for which initial permission dated 31 January 1995 was issued.
7) Dr. Sabban would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Dipak Babaria and Another Versus. State of Gujarat and Others 1 in support of his contention that similar provision under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1956 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that bonafide industrial use must mean actual use of the land for manufacturing activity. He 1 (2014) 3 SCC 502 Page No.6 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Msco Pvt. Ltd. Versus. Union of India and others 2 and of Delhi High Court in Shri Ram Saroop and Another Versus. Messrs Janki Dass Jai Kumar & Another 3 in support of his contention that putting the land to industrial use means commencement of industrial manufacturing/industrial production by using raw materials.
8) Dr. Sabban would further submit that the Collector has erroneously rejected Petitioner's application for return of the land by citing the pretext of delay. That there is statutory obligation for re- conveyance of the land under Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act and the issue of delay is irrelevant for the such re-conveyance. He would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Uttam Namdeo Mahale Versus. Vithal Deo and others4 in support of his contention that statutory applications can be filed at any time without reasonable time limitations, if the Act does not provide any statutory time limit for filing applications. That the MRT has erroneously relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Versus. Fatmabai Ibrahim5 which has been distinguished in the three Judge Bench judgment in Uttam Namdeo Mahale (supra).
9) Dr. Sabban would further submit that the MRT has erred in setting aside the direction in the order dated 11 November 2019 for levy 2 (1985) 1 SCC 51 3 AIR 1976 Delhi 219 4 (1997) 6 SCC 73 5 (1997) 6 SCC 71 Page No.7 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC of penalty. That the order of MRT causes loss of revenue to the public exchequer. Dr. Sabban would accordingly pray for setting aside the orders passed by the Collector and MRT and for re-conveyance of the subject land to the Petitioner.
10) The petition is opposed by Mr. Godbole, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.3. He would raise a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. He would submit that Petitioner seeks re-conveyance of the land which can only be granted by the original purchaser viz. Crossland/Ranbaxy. That Crossland and Ranbaxy were impleaded as parties to the proceedings before the Collector and that the Petitioner failed to implead the said companies in proceedings filed before the MRT or in the present Petition. That in absence of Crossland and Ranbaxy, re-conveyance of the subject land to the Petitioner is impossible. He would accordingly pray for dismissal of the petition on the ground of non-impleadment of Crossland and Ranbaxy.
11) Mr. Godbole would further submit that Section 44A has been introduced in the Code which obviates permission for non- agricultural use of land where the same is purchased after securing permission under Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act. That Section 44A of the Code contemplates issuance of a Sanad after receipt of intimation of use of land for bonafide industrial use. That a Sanad has been issued on 28 February 1996 in favour of Crossland after verifying industrial Page No.8 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC use of the land. That the said Sanad is evidence of land being put to use for industrial purposes. That Petitioner questioned the genuineness of the said Sanad dated 28 February 1996 by lodging an FIR in the year 2024 and by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 4550/2021. That the police carried out investigations and did not find any substance in the allegation of forgery raised by the Petitioner. That once Sanad is found to be a genuine document, no further enquiry can be conducted into a bonafide use of the purchased land.
12) Mr. Godbole would further submit that though the permission issued on 31 January 1995 indicates exact use of the land for manufacturing of bulk drugs, Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act does not contemplate specifications of the exact purpose. That in any case, the purpose of purchase of land for industrial use was fulfilled by Crossland. The same is also fulfilled by the Petitioner who has set up Agro-Food Processing Industry on the land. That Section 63-1A is actually beneficial to the land owners, which permits sale of the agricultural land at a higher price for industrial use rather than selling the same at lower price to an agriculturist. That the provision is also intended for giving an impetus to industrial development in the State. That the Petitioner, having sold the land at market price, is now making attempts to somehow regain his title. That the Collector and MRT have recorded finding of fact about actual use of the land for industrial purposes which do not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That the Page No.9 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC Petitioner is not concerned with the imposition of penalty by the Collector. That MRT has rightly set aside the penalty after observing that the land was actually put to industrial use and after expiry of 15 years, no further permission of the Competent Authority was necessary. He would pray for dismissal of the petition.
13) Mr. Patel, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State would also oppose the petition. He would submit that the concurrent findings of facts are recorded in the impugned order which do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. He would pray for dismissal of the petition.
14) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.
15) Petitioner was the owner of the subject land admeasuring 13 Hectares and 24 Ares and has sold the same to Crossland vide registered Sale-Deeds dated 16 March 1994 and 23 February 1995.
16) Section 63 of the Tenancy Act imposes a restriction on transfer of agricultural land in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist. By Maharashtra Act 28 of 1994, Section 63-1A was inserted in the Tenancy Act, which carves out an exception to the provisions of Section 63. By virtue of Section 63-1A, it became lawful Page No.10 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC for a person to sell agricultural land without permission of the Collector to any person who is not an agriculturist, but who intends to convert the same to a bonafide industrial use. In the year 2016, Section 63-1A has further been amended to incorporate the sale of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist for development of integrated township projects as well. Thus, under the provisions of Section 63-1A, an agricultural land can be sold to a non-agriculturist provided the same is used for bonafide industrial use or for integrated township projects. It would be apposite to reproduce the provisions of Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act which provides thus :-
63-1A. Transfer to non-agriculturist for bonafide industrial use.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 63, it shall be lawful for a person to sell land, without permission of the Collector, to any person who is or is not an agriculturist and who intends to convert the same to a bona fide industrial use or for Integrated Township Projects, as the case may be, where such land is located within,--
(i) the agricultural zone of a draft or final Regional Plan or draft or final Town Planning Scheme, as the case may be, prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 or any other law for the time being in force, and plans or schemes and the development control regulations or rules framed under such Act or any of such laws for the time being in force permit industrial use of land; or
(ii) the area where no such plan or scheme as aforesaid exists or :
(iii) the area taken over by a private developer for development of an Integrated Township Project :
Provided that, where such purchase of land is for bona fide industrial use, it shall be subject to the condition that such land shall be put to bona fide industrial use within a period of five years from the date of purchase:
Provided further that, after the expiry of the aforesaid period of five years, an extension of time not exceeding further five years may be granted by the Collector on payment of non-utilization charges at the rate of two per cent. of the market value of such land per annum, where such market value is calculated as per the Annual Statement or Rates published under the Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True Market Page No.11 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC Value of Property) Rules, 1995, as applicable on the date of grant of such extension of time :
Provided also that, if the purchaser fails to put the land to bona fide industrial use within a period of five years or, where non-utilization charges as aforesaid have been paid, within a total period of ten years, then the Collector shall resume such land after giving one month's notice to the said defaulting purchaser, and the land so resumed by the Collector shall vest in the Government, free from all encumbrances, and shall first be offered to the original land holder by way of grant, on the same tenure on which it was initially held by such land holder before its sale for such bona fide industrial use and at the same price at which it had been sold by the original land holder for such bona fide industrial use :
Provided also that, if the original land holder fails to accept the offer to purchase the said land within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of such offer from the Collector or having accepted such offer, fails to deposit with the Collector the required amount within a further period of ninety days, such land shall be auctioned for any use consistent with and permissible under the Development plan or Regional plan or Town Planning Scheme, as the case may be, if any, sanctioned under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 or any other law for the time being in force; and in both the cases, the defaulting purchaser shall only be entitled to compensation equal to the price at which such land had been purchased by him, and the Collector shall remit such compensation to the defaulting purchaser within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of payment under the said auction :] Provided also that, the purchaser who fails to put the land to bona-fide industrial use within five years from the date of the purchase, and is on the date of coming into force of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004 holding such land without having been put to the bona-fide industrial use, shall be permitted to put such land to the bona-fide industrial use within the remaining period from the total period of fifteen years, subject to the condition that,
(a) In the land purchased under sub-section (1) was held by the seller as the Occupant Class-II, such purchaser land holder shall pay an additional amount equal to 48 per cent. of the price for which it was originally purchased and three times of an annual assessment of non-agricultural tax payable under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 as a non-utilisation tax per year;
(b) if the land purchased under sub-section (1) was held by the seller as the Occupant Class-I, such purchaser land holder shall pay an amount equal to three times of an annual-assessment of the non-agricultural tax payable under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 as a non-utilisation tax per year :Page No.12 of 29
11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC Provided also that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to the areas notified as the Eco-sensitive zone by the Government of India;
Provided also that, where the land being sold is owned by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, such sale of land shall be subject to the provisions of sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974.
(2) If, the land being purchased under sub-section (1) is held by Occupant Class II, the purchaser shall pay to the Collector, an amount equal to two per cent. of the purchase price, in case the purchase of land is for bona-fide industrial use and fifty per cent. of the purchase if the purchase of land is for Integrated Township Project within ninety days of the execution of the sale-deed irrespective of the tenure of such land. This payment shall be in lieu of any nazarana or such other charges which may otherwise be payable by such Occupant-Class II by or under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. In addition, the purchaser of such land shall pay the non- agricultural assessment as may be levied by the Collector under sections 67 and 115 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 :
Provided that, if such purchaser fails to deposit such amount within ninety days, then such purchaser shall pay to the Government an amount equal to seventy five per cent. of the purchase price or the market value of the land as per the Annual Statement of Rates of that year, whichever is higher.
Explanation,- While computing the period of ninety days, the period if any, spent in ascertaining from the office of the Collector the amount to be paid under this sub-section, the Head of account in which it is to be paid or issuing a challan for that purpose shall be excluded.
(3) The person purchasing the land under sub-section (1) for conversion thereof for a bona fide industrial use, or for Integrated Township Project, as the case may be, shall give intimation of the date, on which the change of user of the land commenced, within thirty days from such date, to the collector.
(4) If the person fails to inform the Collector within the period specified in sub-
section (3), he shall be liable to pay in addition to the non-agricultural assessment which may be leviable by or under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 such penalty not exceeding twenty times the amount of non-agricultural assessment as the Collector may, subject to the rules, if any, made by the State Government in this behalf, direct. (5) If the person purchasing the land under sub-section (1) for conversion thereof for a bona fide industrial use, fails to utilize the said land for bona fide industrial use, fully or partly, and wants to sell the same before the expiry of the total specified period of ten years, he may, subject to the payment of non-utilization Page No.13 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC charges specified in the second proviso to sub-section (1), be permitted by the Collector to do so for the remaining period out of the specified period of ten years from the date of original purchase, subject to the following conditions, namely :--
(i) where the said land is to be sold for bona fide industrial use, the transferor shall have to deposit with the Collector the transfer charges at the rate of twenty-five per cent. of the market value of such land as per the current Annual Statement of Rates;
(ii) where the said land is to be sold for any non-agricultural purpose other than the bona fide industrial use, which is consistent with the draft or final Development plan or Regional plan or Town Planning Scheme, if any, made under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 or any other law for the time being in force, the transferor shall have to deposit with the Collector conversion charges equal to fifty per cent. of the market value of such land as per the current Annual Statement of Rates and in case of Occupant Class-II land, an additional amount equal to forty-eight per cent. of the price at which such land was originally purchased, in lieu of the nazarana].
(6) If a person purchasing the land under sub-section (1) for conversion thereof for a bona fide industrial use, fails to utilize the said land for bona fide industrial purpose, fully or partly, and intends to utilize the same, before the expiry of the total specified period of ten years, for any alternative non-agricultural purpose other than the bona fide industrial use, which is consistent with the draft or final Development Plan or Regional Plan, if any, made under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, so as to put such land to the intended alternative use within the remaining period out of the specified period of ten years from the date of original purchase, he may be permitted by the Collector to do so subject to payment of,-
(i) non-utilization charges specified in second proviso to sub-section (1);
(ii) conversion charges equal to fifty per cent. of the market value of such land as per the current Annual Statement of Rates published under the Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995; and
(iii) in case of Occupant-Class II lands, an additional amount equal to forty eight per cent. of the price at which such land was originally purchased, in lieu of the nazrana payable to the Government.] Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section,--
(a) the expression "bona fide industrial use" means the activity of manufacture, preservation of processing of goods, or any handicraft, or industrial business or enterprise, carried on by any person, or the activity of tourism within the areas notified by the State Government as the tourist place or hill station,] and shall include construction of industrial buildings used for the manufacturing process or purpose, or power projects and ancillary industrial usage like research and Page No.14 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC development units pertaining to bona fide industrial use, godown, canteen, office building of the industry concerned, or providing housing accomodation to the workers of the industry concerned, or establishment of an industrial estate including a co-operative industrial estate, service industry, cottage industry, gramodyog units or gramodyog vasahats.
(aa) "Integrated Township Project" means the Integrated Township Project or projects under the Regulations framed for development of Integrated Township by the Government under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 or any other law for the time being in force.
(b) "Scheduled Tribes" means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of, or groups within, such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Maharashtra under article 342 of the Constitution of India and persons, who belong to the tribes or tribal communities, or parts of, or groups within, tribes or tribal communities specified in Part IX of the Schedule to the Order made under the said article 342, but who are not resident in the localities specified in that order who nevertheless need the protection of this section (and it is hereby declared that they do need such protection) shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated in the same manner as members of the Scheduled Tribes.
17) Crossland applied to the Competent Authority seeking permission for purchase of the subject land. The Development Commissioner (Industries) passed order dated 31 January 1995 granting permission to Crossland for purchase of the subject land subject to various conditions. It would be apposite to reproduce order dated 31 January 1995, which reads thus :-
ORDER Whereas M/S. Crosland Research Laboratories Ltd., have put up an application to the Directorate of Industries for purchase of land upto 13.24 Hectors (Thirteen point twenty four hectors) and where as this Directorate of Industries has examined the reasonableness of requirement of the said land on the basis of information and an Affidavit quoted as above.
I Shri. Y.S. Bhave, Development Commissioner (Industries), Maharashtra, Bombay-32 under the powers vested in me by virtue of amendments to Section 63 IA(II) as per the above amended act 1994, permit M/S. Crosland Research Laboratories Ltd., to purchase land admeasuring 13.24 Hectors (Thirteen point twenty four hectors). As per details of land use shown in the annexure. This Page No.15 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC permission is limited only for the purchase of land shown in the annexure to this order.
Attention is specifically drawn to the following clauses mentioned in the Maharashtra Tenancy & Agricultural Land Laws (Amendment) Act of 1994, relating to use of land for industrial purpose.
1. The land to be purchased shall be put to industrial use within a period of 5 years from the date of purchase, failing which the person from whom the land has purchased, shall have a right to re-purchase the land at the price for which it was originally sold.
2. If the land belongs to Scheduled Tribe, such sale of land shall be subject to the provisions of Section 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974.
3. If the land being purchased as above, is held by Occupant-Class II, the purchaser shall pay to the Collector, an amount equal to two per cent, of the purchase price within one month of the execution of the sale deed irrespective of the tenure of such Land. This payment shall be in lieu of any nasrana or such other charges which may otherwise be payable by such Occupant Class II by or under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
4. In addition to the above, the purchaser of such land shall pay the non- agricultural assessment as may be levied by the Collector under Sections 67 & 115 or the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1960.
5. The person purchasing the land under sub-Section 63 (1A for conversion thereof for a bonafied industrial use shall give Intimation of the date, on which the change of user of land commenced, within thirty days from such date, to the Collector of the district.
6. If the person fails to inform the Collector within the period specified in sub- section 63IA III he shall be liable to pay in addition to the non-agricultural assessment which may be leviable by or under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Such penalty not exceeding twenty times the amount of non-agricultural assessment as the Collector may, fix subject to rules made by the State Govt. in this behalf.
7. This permission for the purchase of land is granted only on the basis of the details submitted by the applicant from the point of reasonableness of the requirement.
8. The permission is granted for the purchase of land as specified by the applicant in their application and as per the affidavit given by the applicant to the Directorate of Industries. Applicant will have to ascertain from appropriate Page No.16 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC authorities that there is no reservation of any kind on any part of the land and title of the land is clear. Details of land purchased may be communicated to this office immediately.
9. The applicant will have to comply with the provisions of all other Acts/Rules/Notifications issued from time to time by State Govt./Central Govt. in this behalf.
10. The applicant should not purchase land more than 13.24 Hectors (Thirteen point twenty four hectors) (Total) for this project in the Dist. of Pune for which permission has been granted and the applicant should abide by the provisions of Maharashtra Tenency & Agricultural Land Laws (Amendment) Act of 1994 fated 28/04/94.
18) Thus, permission was granted for purchase of land admeasuring 13.24 Hectares for the purpose of bonafide industrial use. In Annexure-A to the order dated 31 January 1995, details of the land were indicated as 'manufacturing of bulk drugs'. Under Condition No.1, the purchased land was directed to be put to industrial use within a period of five years from the date of purchase failing which the person from whom the land was purchased was given a right to repurchase the land at a price for which it was originally sold.
19) It is Petitioner's case that, Crossland did not put the land to industrial use and did not commence any manufacturing activity of bulk drug production within the specified period of five years. On the other hand, Crossland merged into Ranbaxy in the year 1997 and Ranbaxy became owner of the subject land. It is Petitioner's case that even Ranbaxy did not commence any manufacturing activity on the subject land which was ultimately sold to Respondent No.3 (non-drug producer) in the year 2010. Petitioner accordingly alleges that purchase Page No.17 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC of the land was used by Crossland/Ranbaxy for profiteering purposes without putting the land to actual industrial use.
20) The expression 'bonafide industrial use' has been defined in Explanation (a) of Section 63-1A which includes construction of industrial building, use for manufacturing processes or purposes.
21) Simultaneously, with introduction of Section 63-1A in the Tenancy Act, Section 44A was introduced in the Code which provides thus :-
44A. No permission required for bonafide industrial use of land.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 42 or 44, where a person desires to convert any land held for the purpose of agriculture or held for a particular non-agricultural purpose, situated,--
(i) within the industrial zone of a draft or final regional plan or draft, interim or final development plan or draft or final town planning scheme, as the case may be, prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, or any other law for the time being in force ; or within the agricultural zone of any of such plans or schemes and the development control regulations or rules framed under such Act or any of such laws permit industrial use of land ; or
(ii) within the area where no plan or scheme as aforesaid exists, for a bona-fide industrial use ; or
(iii) within the area undertaken by a private developer as an Integrated Township Project, then, no permission for such conversion of use of land shall be required, subject to the following conditions, namely :--
(a) the person intending to put the land to such use has a clear title and proper access to the said land ;
(b) such person has satisfied himself that no such land or part thereof is reserved for any other public purpose as per the Development plan (where such plan exists) and the proposed Page No.18 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC bona fide industrial use or Integrated Township Project, as the case may be, does not conflict with the overall scheme of the said Development plan ;
(c) no such land or part thereof is notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 or covers the alignment of any road included in the 1981-2001 Road Plan or any subsequent Road Plan prepared by the State Government ;
(d) such person ensures that the proposed industry or Integrated Township Project, as the case may be, does not come up within thirty metres of any railway line or within fifteen metres of a high voltage transmission line ;
(e) there shall be no contravention of the provisions of any law, or any rules, regulations or orders made or issued, under any law for the time being in force, by the State or Central Government or any local authority, statutory authority, Corporation controlled by the Central or State Government or any Government Company pertaining to management of Coastal Regulation Zone, or of the Ribbon Development Rules, Building Regulation, or rules or any provisions with regard to the benefitted zones of irrigation project and also those pertaining to environment, public health, peace or safety:
Provided that, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to the areas notified as the Eco-sensitive Zone, by the Government of India.
(2) The person so using the land for a bona fide industrial use or Integrated Township Project, as the case may be, shall give intimation of the date on which the change of user of land has commenced and furnish other information, in the prescribed form within thirty days from such date, to the Tahsildar through the village officers, and shall also endorse a copy thereof to the Collector :
Provided that, where such change of user of land has commenced before the rules prescribing such form are published finally in the Official Gazette, such intimation and information shall be furnished within thirty days from the date on which such rules are so published.
(3) (a) If the person fails to inform the Tahsildar and the Collector, as aforesaid, within the period specified in sub-section (2) or on verification it is found from the information given by him in the prescribed form that, the use of land is in contravention of any of the conditions specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to either of, or to both, the following penalties, namely :--
(i) to pay in addition to the non-agricultural assessment which may be leviable by or under the provisions of this Code, such penalty not Page No.19 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC exceeding rupees ten thousand or such amount as may be prescribed, whichever is higher, as the Collector may direct :
Provided that, the penalty so levied shall not be less than twenty times the non-agricultural assessment of such land irrespective whether it does or does not exceed rupees ten thousand ;
(ii) to restore the land to its original use.
(b) Where there has been a contravention of any of the conditions specified in sub-section (1), such person shall, on being called upon by the Collector, by notice in writing, be required to do anything to stop such contravention as directed by such notice and within such period as specified in such notice, and such notice may also require such person to remove any structure, to fill up any excavation or to take such other steps as may be required in order that the land may be used for its original purpose or that the conditions may be satisfied within the period specified in the notice.
(4) (a) If any person fails to comply with the directions or to take steps required to be taken within the period specified in the notice, as aforesaid, the Collector may also impose on such person a further penalty not exceeding five thousand rupees or such amount as may be prescribed, whichever is higher, for such contravention, and a daily penalty not exceeding one hundred rupees or such amount as may be prescribed, whichever is higher, for each day during which the contravention continues.
(b) It shall be lawful for the Collector himself to take or cause to be taken such steps as may be necessary; and any cost incurred in so doing shall be recoverable from such person as if it were an arrear of land revenue.
(5) As soon as an intimation of use of land for bona fide industrial use or Integrated Township Project, as the case may be, is received under sub-section (2) and on verification it is found that the holder of the land fulfils all the conditions specified in sub-section (1), a sanad shall be granted to the holder thereof in the prescribed form within a period of sixty days in case of bona-fide industrial use and ninety days in case of Integrated Township Project from the date of receipt of such intimation. Where there is any clerical or arithmetical error in the sanad arising from any accidental slip or omission, it shall be lawful for the Collector either of his own motion or on the application of a person affected by the error to direct at any time the correction of any such error.
Explanation-I.--For the purposes of this section " bona fide industrial use "
means the activity of manufacture, preservation or processing of goods, or any handicraft, or industrial business or enterprise, carried on by any person, or the activity of tourism, within the area notified as the tourist place or hill station, by the State Government and shall include construction of industrial buildings used for the manufacturing process or purpose, or power projects and ancillary industrial usages like research and development, godown, canteen, office- building of the industry concerned or providing housing accommodation to the workers of the industry concerned, or establishment of an industrial estate Page No.20 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC including co-operative industrial estate, service industry, cottage industry, gramodyog units or gramodyog Vasahats.
Explanation-II.--For the purposes of this section, "Integrated Township Project"
means Integrated Township Project or projects under the Regulations framed for development of Integrated Township Project by the Government, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
22) Thus, under Section 44A of the Code, no permission for conversion of use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes is necessary if the land is proposed to be used for bonafide industrial use. The definition of the term 'bonafide industrial use' in Section 44A of the Code and Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act is similar. Under sub- section (2) of Section 44A, a person using the land for bonafide industrial use is required to give an intimation of the date on which change of user of the land commences in a prescribed format to the Tahsildar with endorsement of copy to the Collector. After receipt of such intimation under sub-section (5), a Sanad can be granted to the holder of the land after verification of the fact that the land is actually put to industrial use.
23) In the present case, it appears that after purchase of the land, Crossland gave an intimation to the Tahsildar of land being put to bonafide industrial use. The Tahsildar through Gaon Kamgar Talathi carried out verification and thereafter Sanad dated 28 February 1996 came to be issued certifying that the land was put to industrial use.
24) Petitioner alleges that the Sanad dated 28 February 1996 is a forged document. Though no declaration to that effect is sought in the Page No.21 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC present petition, it appears that the Petitioner had separately lodged FIR dated 22 September 2024 in Bund Garden Police Station, Pune. He thereafter filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 4550/2021 in this Court. When the said petition came up for hearing on 29 January 2025, following order was passed :-
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner essentially seeks a direction to the Respondent-Bundgarden Police Station, Pune to conduct further investigation into the allegations made by the Petitioner and register an F.I.R. against Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 for filing a false Affidavit in Reply with bogus and fabricated Sanad document dated 28th February 1996 and a false affidavit dated 19th January 2021.
3. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have played fraud upon the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune by relying on the said documents. The Petitioner also seeks further enquiry into the Petitioner's complaint vis-a-vis the bogus Sanad of the land.
4. Post the filing of this Petition, the police registered an F.I.R. on 22nd September 2024 as against one accused. During the course of hearing, learned APP also submitted a letter dated 8th October 2024 of Dr. Suhas Divase, Collector, Pune. 5. Today, learned APP, on instructions, states that the police have carried out investigation and have found no substance in the allegations made by the Petitioner that the Sanad dated 28th February 1996 is false and fabricated. He submits that the said Sanad has been found in the files of various Authorities and that the statements of the authorities have been recorded during the course of investigation. Learned APP further submits that the Sanad in question, has been issued by the Competent Authority and that the witnesses to the Sanad have also given their statements confirming the same. The investigation was being supervised by the Deputy Commissioner of Police-Ms Samarthana Patil. He submits that the police will file an appropriate report after investigation.
6. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives for further consideration in the Petition.
7. The Petition stand disposed of accordingly.
Page No.22 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC 25) Thus, no substance is found in the allegation of the
Petitioner that the Sanad dated 28 February 1996 is false or fabricated.
Also, in absence of challenge to the said Sanad in the present Petition, Petitioner cannot be permitted to urge before this Court that Sanad is a forged document.
26) The statutory scheme appears to be such that Sanad issued under sub-section (5) of Section 44A of the Code becomes evidence of actual bonafide use of the land for industrial purposes. Additionally, an independent enquiry was apparently conducted by the Collector into the allegation of land not being used for industrial purposes. The Collector called for the report from Tahsildar, Purandar, which indicated that Crossland had secured permission for non-agricultural use of the land on 28 February 1996. The Report also indicated that Crossland had carried out RCC construction, as well as compound wall around the land. The Grampanchayat had levied taxes in respect of the said construction and had called upon Crossland to pay amount of Rs.1,37,798/-. The Collector thereafter took into consideration the fact that the Auditor General, Nagpur had raised objection about short payment of stamp duty and documents were produced to demonstrate the construction of factory admeasuring 8,800 sq.mtrs. on the said land. The Collector also took into consideration order dated 29 July 2013 granting N.A. permission which again indicated actual industrial use of the land in portion admeasuring 84 Ares. This is how the Collector has recorded a finding of fact that several constructions for industrial Page No.23 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC purposes were carried out on the subject land. As observed above, definition of the term 'bonafide industrial use' both under Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act as well as under Section 44A of the Code includes construction of industrial building on the purchased lands. Once the Collector found that construction for industrial purposes was carried out on the land, bonafide industrial use would get established.
27) The above finding of fact has been confirmed in Revision by the MRT. There is no reason why the said findings of fact need to be disturbed in exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In absence of element of arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity in the orders passed by the Collector and MRT, this Court need not correct every error of law or fact and so far as the Court is satisfied that the order impugned does not result in any manifest injustice, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 need not be exercised to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the finding is justified or can be supported. (SEE Garment Craft Versus. Prakash Chand Goel6).
28) The conduct of the Petitioner could also be relevant for exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has used the provisions of Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act to his advantage by selling the land to an industry possibly at a higher rate than the one which could have been paid by a local villager for use of the land for agricultural purposes. After securing advantage of 6 (2022) 4 SCC 181 Page No.24 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC selling the land to an industrial company and after exploiting its commercial potential, Petitioner smelt an opportunity of seeking re- conveyance of the land after delay of 24 long years and filed application dated 18 May 2018 before the Collector. Both the Collector as well as MRT have rightly taken into consideration the fact that five year period had come to an end by the year 2000 and if indeed the land was kept vacant without carrying out any construction, Petitioner ought to have exercised its alleged right of re-conveyance within reasonable time after the year 2000. He however filed application after 18 long years, which has rightly been rejected by the Collector, inter-alia on the ground of delay.
29) It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that since no specific period of limitation is prescribed under Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act for seeking re-conveyance of the land, his application could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. In this regard reliance is placed by the Petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in Uttam Namdeo Mahale (supra). The judgment however is rendered in unique facts of the case where eviction of Respondent therein had attained finality and proceedings were thereafter initiated for execution of eviction order. Section 21 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 did not prescribe any limitation for execution of eviction order. It is in the light of these facts that the Apex Court held that eviction order could be executed at any point of time. In the present case, even though Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act does not prescribe any specific period of Page No.25 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC limitation for resumption of the land by the Collector and for offering the same for grant to the original seller, it cannot be that the seller can wake up at any point of time and seek re-conveyance of the land. The seller's right of re-conveyance depends on intermediate step of the Collector first resuming the land. In the present case, the Collector never resumed the land. On the other hand, a Sanad is issued certifying use of the land for industrial purposes. Therefore, the Collector has never formed an opinion that the land was required to be resumed. In such circumstances, when Petitioner filed proceedings seeking resumption of the land by the Collector and its re-conveyance in his favour on the ground of alleged failure to put the land to bonafide use for industrial purposes within the prescribed time, such proceedings ought to have been initiated within the reasonable time of the expiry of the prescribed period. Thus, the Collector as well as MRT were justified in holding that Petitioner's application for return of the land suffered from the vice of delay and laches.
30) As observed above, there is no direct and independent right in favour of the original land owner to seek re-conveyance of the land. The right gets crystalized only after the Collector resumes the land. In the present case, the Collector has not resumed the land. Petitioner therefore did not have any right to have the land reconveyed to him.
Page No.26 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC 31) Petitioner's reliance on judgments of the Apex Court in
Dipak Babaria (supra) and Msco Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and of Delhi High Court in Ram Saroop (supra) does not assist his case. Those judgments are relied on by Petitioner in support of the contention that actual manufacturing must commence for inferring that the land is put to industrial use. However, provisions of Section 63-1A of the Tenancy Act and Section 44A of the Code are unique, which include the activity of construction of structure within the ambit of the term 'bonafide industrial use'. Thus, the statutory scheme of Tenancy Act and the Code is such that actual manufacturing process need not commence for the purpose of inferring that the land is put to industrial use.
32) It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the construction put up by Crossland was illegal and unauthorised and that therefore the said activity of construction cannot be taken into consideration for inferring that the land was put to bonafide industrial use. In my view, it would be too farfetched to conduct an inquiry into the legality of construction carried out by Crossland at this distant date. The Collector and MRT have satisfied themselves that the land was actually put to industrial use by construction of a factory. Even today, Respondent No. 3 has been using the land for industrial purposes. Thus the objective behind creating the exception for permitting sale of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist is largely fulfilled.
Page No.27 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC 33) So far as the order of the MRT setting aside the penalty
imposed by the Collector on Respondent No.3 is concerned, Petitioner has absolutely no concern with the same. As a matter of fact, Petitioner has not challenged the order of the MRT dated 23 February 2023 to the extent of allowing Revision Applications of Respondent No.3 being Application Nos. P/XII/5/2019 and P/II/1/2020. The petition is confined only to rejection of his Revision Application No. P/XII/1/2019. In this connection, it would be relevant to reproduce substantial prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition :-
(a) This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, to quash & set aside the impugned order dt.23-02-2023 passed by the Ld. Tribunal unjustly rejecting Revision Application No. P/XII/1/2019 filed by the Petitioners;
(b) This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, directing the Respondent authorities to forthwith grant the re-conveyance u/S. 63-
1A for all the petitioner lands mentioned in para-2 above, for failure to put the lands to bonafide industrial use within 15 years statutory period & for violating the terms & conditions for use of land u/S. 63-1A of MTAL Act.
34) Thus, the Petitioner has not challenged order passed by the MRT in the two Revisions filed by Respondent No.3. It is therefore not necessary to delve deeper into this aspect as Petitioner neither has locus to challenge nor has challenged the part of MRT's order which allows the two Revision Applications filed by Respondent No.3.
Page No.28 of 29 11 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-9748-2023-FC 35) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the
view that the Petitioner has failed to make out even a single valid ground of challenge to the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the MRT. The petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2025.09.11
19:29:32
+0530
Page No.29 of 29
11 September 2025
::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 21:45:51 :::