32-WP11284-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11284 OF 2026 Jumma Masjid Panvel Through Trustees ...Petitioner Versus The Additional Tahsildar And Agricultural Land Tribunal And Ors …Respondents Mr. Girish Paryani, a/w Shavez Mukri, i/b A&G Legal Asso., for the Petitioner. Mr. Y. S. Khochare, ‘B’ Panel for the State. Mr. R. D. Soni, a/w Meena Sharma, i/b Pandurang Deshmukh, for Respondent Nos.2 to 8. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 28th July, 2026 passed by the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (‘ALT’), Panvel, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner questioning the maintainability of an application under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (‘MT&AL Act, 1948’) was deferred for adjudication to the stage of final hearing of the main application under Section 32G, i.e. Tenancy/SR/40/2025. 1/5 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.09 11:31:14 +0530 32-WP11284-2026.DOC 3. The respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have instituted the said application under Section 32G asserting, inter alia, that the predecessor-in-title of the applicants was a protected tenant, and on the Tiller’s Day, he became the deemed purchaser of the subject land. 4. The petitioner-landlord preferred an application questioning the maintainability of the application under Section 32G on the premise that, since prior to Tiller’s Day, the subject land has been included within the limits of the Panvel Municipal Council and, therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Section 43C of the MT&AL Act, 1948, the provisions contained in Sections 31 to 32R (including Section 32G) have no application to the subject land. The ALT was persuaded to defer the objection to the tenability of the main application on the ground of non-applicability of the provisions contained in Section 32G of the Act to the subject land to the stage of final adjudication of the main application. 5. Mr. Paryani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, earlier proceedings instituted under Section 32G were kept in abeyance as evidenced by ME No. 6659 dated 30th December, 1972. Therefore, there was no propriety in again agitating the issue of the subject land being governed by the 2/5 32-WP11284-2026.DOC provisions of Sections 31 to 32R of the MT&AL Act, 1948. Attention of the Court was invited to the record of rights of the subject land, especially ME No. 6659 of 1972. 6. The ALT, in the view of this Court, was justified in deferring the issue of the non-applicability of the provisions contained in Sections 31 to 32R of the MT&AL Act, 1948 to the stage of final determination. From the perusal of the averments in the application for determination of the purchase price, it becomes abundantly clear that respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have categorically asserted that late Dhondya Balu Khutkar, the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 2 to 8, was a protected tenant in respect of the subject land, and the said fact was evidenced by ME Nos. 1718 and 1720. The predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 2 to 8 became the deemed purchaser of the subject land. 7. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that under the provisions of Section 43C of the MT&AL Act, 1948, if the land falls in the area within the limits of the specified Municipal Corporation / Municipal Borough or Cantonment, or the area is included in a TP Scheme under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, the provisions contained in Sections 31 to 32R, (inclusive of Section 32G), do not apply to such land. However, the proviso 3/5 32-WP11284-2026.DOC to Section 43C is of material significance. Under the said proviso, in the event any person has acquired any rights as a tenant under the MT&AL Act, 1948 on or after 28th December, 1948, the said right shall not be deemed to have been affected by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1952 or by the Amendment Act, 1955, notwithstanding the fact that either of the said Acts has been made applicable to the area in which such land is situated. 8. Thus, the crucial question that would warrant determination in Tenancy Case No. Tenancy/SR/ 40/2025 is, whether the proviso to Section 43C has any application to the subject land. If the tenant is entitled to protection under the proviso to Section 43C, the interdict contained in the main part of Section 43C would not apply. A useful reference in this context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ishverlal Thakorelal Almanula (deceased) vs. Motibhai Nagjibhai1. 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the ALT cannot be said to have committed any error in deferring the issue of applicability of the provisions of Section 43C to the subject land to the stage of final determination, as it appears to be a mixed 1 AIR 1966 SC 459. 4/5 32-WP11284-2026.DOC question of law and fact. Thus, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the writ petition against an order which defers the issue for adjudication alongwith the main application. 10. The petition stands dismissed. 11. By way of abundant caution, it is, however, clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter as to whether the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 2 to 8 was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 43C, and all questions and all contentions of all the parties are kept open for adjudication by the ALT. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 5/5