24-WP9671-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9671 OF 2026 Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus The Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Haveli, Pune and Ors …Respondents Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Parag Kabadi, Ms. Anshita Sethi i/by DSK Legal, for Petitioner. Mrs. V. R. Raje, AGP for Respondent No.1. Dr. Ranjit Thorat, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe, for Respondent Nos.2 to 15. Mr. Atharva Dandekar i/by Mr. Hitendra Parab, for Respondent No.24. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 16th June, 2026 passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT), Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune. 3. By the said order an application preferred by the petitioner raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the application under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the MT&AL Act’), was rejected. 1/6 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.30 21:27:13 +0530 24-WP9671-2026.DOC 4. By the said application, the petitioner had prayed that the Tribunal may frame and decide preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the application, alongside a prayer for the dismissal of the application under Section 32G as not maintainable. 5. By the impugned order, the ALT held that the aspect whether the predecessor-in-title of the respondent Nos.2 to 15 was a tenant in respect of the subject land was required to be decided at the stage of final hearing of the application under Section 32G and the said aspect cannot be decided at a preliminary stage. 6. Mr. Godbole, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, invited the attention of this Court to an order passed by this Court on 12th March, 2025 condoning the delay in preferring an appeal against the certification of the Mutation Entry No.1388, which according to Mr. Godbole, forms the basis of the claim for fixing the purchase price of the subject land. It was submitted that, this Court has passed serious strictures against the Sub-Divisional Officer, who had condoned the delay of about 70 years. 7. The second limb of the submissions of Mr. Godbole was that, in the intervening period, the State Government has 2/6 24-WP9671-2026.DOC issued a Notification on 2nd January, 2009 under Section 88(1) (b) of the MT&AL Act, 1948 and thereby the areas comprised in the limits of Nashik Municipal Corporation and Pimpri- Chinchwad Municipal Corporation have been reserved for non- agricultural development, such as residential, commercial, and recreational uses or designated for public purposes or for industrial user in the Final Development Plans of the said Corporation sanctioned under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act, 1966”), except the lands held by the tenants. It was urged, in view of the aforesaid Notification, the provisions of the MT&AL Act, including Section 32G thereof, do not apply to the subject land. A reference was made to the instrument executed in the year 1955 to substantiate the claim that the predecessor-in-title of the respondent Nos.2 to 15 ceased to be a tenant. It was, therefore, submitted that the ALT could not have straightaway rejected the application raising objections to the maintainability of the proceeding under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act. 8. Mr. Thorat, the learned Senior Advocate for the respondents, countered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner. It was urged that, there is no period of limitation for filing an application under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act. By 3/6 24-WP9671-2026.DOC the operation of law a tenant who was in possession of the agricultural land on the Tiller’s Day, is deemed to have purchased the said land. In the application questioning the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 32G, the petitioner has raised all sorts of objections. An interim order passed by this Court in writ petition arising out of RTS proceedings cannot be pressed into service to defeat the statutory right of the tenants under Section 32G of the Act. At any rate, the said question is rooted in facts and could not have been decided at the threshold and, thus, the ALT was justified in rejecting the application. 9. I have perused the material on record. The implications of the issuance of a Notification under Section 88(1)(b) of the MT&AL Act are well settled. Once such a Notification is issued, the provisions contained in the MT&AL Act, 1948 cease to operate qua the lands covered under the said Notification. (S. N. Kamble vs. Sholapur Borough Municipality1). In the case at hand, the issue that requires examination by the ALT is, whether in view of the Notification dated 2nd January, 2009, the provisions of the MT&AL Act ceased to apply to the subject land. Undoubtedly, for the determination of the said question, the 1 AIR 1966 SC 538. 4/6 24-WP9671-2026.DOC issue as to whether the subject land was in the occupation of the tenants as of the Tiller’s day was required to be determined. 10. However, having regard to the period that has elapsed since the certification of the mutation entry No.1399, on the basis of which registered instruments seem to have been executed, the question of applicability of the said Notification to the subject land, ought to have been decided as a preliminary issue. The application could not have been rejected straightway. The determination of the said question would facilitate the ALT to proceed further and if it is held that the predecessor-in-tile of respondent Nos.2 to 15 was in the occupation of the subject land as the tenant thereof, proceed to determine the application under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act. 11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is inclined to party allow the petition and direct the ALT to frame and decide the issue as to whether the application under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act is not maintainable in view of the Notification dated 2nd January, 2009, as a preliminary issue. 12. The ALT shall permit the parties to lead evidence on the said issue and thereafter decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 5/6 24-WP9671-2026.DOC 13. The petition stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 6/6