Gitalaxmi 6-WP-11349-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11349 OF 2026 SMT. LATABEN SURESHSING RANA AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS Versus THE REVENUE MINISTER, THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. D. Kate & Mr. Prasad Avhad i/b Mr. Chetan R. Nagare, Advocates for the Petitioners. Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for the State-Respondent. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026. Per Court : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has pointed out the notice at Exhibit-I (page 81 of the paper-book), issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer (“SDO”), Maval-Mulshi, Pune under the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, 31st AUGUST, 2026 Gitalaxmi 6-WP-11349-2026.docx (“the Act”) particularly Section 2(1)(i), which relates to transfer, is noted below for reference :- “(i) “Transfer” in relation to land means the transfer of land belonging to a tribal made in favour of a non-tribal during the period commencing on the 1st day of April 1957 and ending on the 6th day of July 1974, either- (a) by act of parties, whether by way of sale, gift, exchange, mortgage or lease or any other disposition made inter-vivos; or (b) under a decree or order of a court, or (c) for recovering any amount of land revenue due from such Tribal, or for recovering any other amount due from him as an arrear of land revenue, or otherwise under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 or any other law for the time being in force but does not include a transfer of land falling under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 36 of the Code; and the expressions “Tribal-transferor"”and “on-Tribal transferee” shall be constructed, accordingly.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also submits that the complainants therein had sold the property to the Petitioners on 10th March, 1995 and that the same complainants have invoked the provisions of the Act seeking restoration of the land. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of said Act can be invoked only for the transfers made between 1st April, 1957 and 6th July, 1974 and the said Act cannot be invoked for nullifying any transaction made thereafter. 31st AUGUST, 2026 Gitalaxmi 6-WP-11349-2026.docx 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also submits that the authority constituted has no jurisdiction to deal with the matters since the transfer itself is of 10th March, 1995, so also the authority has no power to invoke such provisions. 6. Learned AGP has submitted that only show-cause notice is issued and that the concerned SDO apparently was unaware of the date of transfer and that the Petitioners have an opportunity to present their case before the SDO. 7. Considering the submissions and since the impugned notice does not indicate the date of transfer, the present Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to produce the Sale Deed before the concerned authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer and may produce it and seek appropriate relief from the SDO. 8. In the event an application is filed questioning the jurisdiction of SDO, particularly with reference to the date of transfer, the said application would be decided by the SDO before further proceeding with the merits of application filed before him. 9. All contentions of the parties are left open. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ] 31st AUGUST, 2026 GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2026.09.08 11:25:31 +0530