Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Order Date: 12 October 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Sadhana Builder (through Mr. Veerdhawal S. Ghag & Anr) represented by Mr. Rohit D. Joshi.
- Respondents: Leela Dattu Kakare and others, represented by Mr. Prasanna K. Shahane.
- The petition challenges the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s (MRT) order dated 12 February 2019 in Revision Application No. 9 of 2019, issued under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974.
- The MRT had found that Section 4 of the 1974 Act did not apply to the transactions (which occurred in 1981 and 1984) but nevertheless remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for an inquiry under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
- The petition argues that the statutory forum for challenging an order under the 1974 Act is the MRT itself, whereas remedies for orders under Section 36A are governed by Schedule F of the 1966 Code; thus the MRT lacked jurisdiction to remit the case.
Final Outcome
- The Bombay High Court, by Justice Amit Borkar, quashes and sets aside the MRT’s judgment and order dated 12 February 2019.
- The court holds that the MRT exceeded its jurisdiction by directing an inquiry under a different enactment (Section 36A of the 1966 Code).
- The order does not bar the Respondent from initiating fresh proceedings under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, or pursuing any other legal remedy, with the parties to be given an opportunity of being heard.
Topics: Land Revenue, Judicial Review, Tribal Land Restoration