They Were Told They Had No Standing. The Court Said They Did.
Buyers with contractual rights in the land were shut out of the tenancy proceedings that decided its fate. The Bombay High Court has set the orders aside and sent them back.
The Court held the Tribunal's order could not be sustained merely because the petitioners were not parties to the original tenancy proceedings or had not obtained a decree for specific performance. Their locus was established. The Tribunal's orders and those of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Sub Divisional Officer were quashed, and the revision applications restored for fresh consideration with an effective hearing to all concerned.
- Two different questions. Whether the transaction is valid is one; whether they are persons aggrieved is another.
- Filing a Section 32-G application proves nothing. Entitlement to purchase has to be determined first.
- The unexamined issues were not minor — earlier proceedings, authority of representatives, a revoked power of attorney, revenue entries, notices, and how the price was fixed.
- Six months for the Tribunal to decide afresh, the parties appearing on 7 September 2026.
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Citation
- Writ Petition No. 12947 of 2016 with Writ Petition No. 6409 of 2018
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 12947 of 2016 with Writ Petition No. 6409 of 2018
- Decided
- August 2026
- Outcome
- Both writ petitions allowed; orders quashed and revisions restored for fresh consideration
The standing objection, and why it failed
The petitioners' challenge had been resisted on the ground that they were not parties to the original tenancy proceedings and had no decree for specific performance.
Whether the transaction they rely on is valid is one question, to be decided by the competent court in appropriate proceedings. Whether they are persons aggrieved by the orders in the tenancy proceedings is another.
On the facts, the petitioners had shown sufficient interest. The impugned orders concern the property in which they claim contractual rights and over which a civil suit is pending.
What the authorities below never examined
There were important questions concerning the earlier Section 32-G proceedings, the authority of the persons who represented the parties, an alleged revocation of the power of attorney, the earlier revenue entries, the notices issued, and the manner in which the purchase price was fixed.
These matters go to the basis of the proceedings and could not be treated as minor. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal's order does not show proper consideration of them.
The mere filing of an application under Section 32-G could not establish that the applicants were entitled to purchase the land. The authority had first to determine their legal entitlement and then proceed according to law.
What was ordered
The Tribunal's orders of 29 March 2016 and 7 March 2017 were quashed and set aside, and consequently so were the orders of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Panvel, and the Sub Divisional Officer, Panvel.
The two revision applications were restored to the file of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the respondents and all other persons concerned.
The Tribunal is to decide within six months of the parties' appearance, and the parties are to appear on 7 September 2026 without separate notice. All contentions on the merits are kept open.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can I challenge tenancy orders if I was not a party?
Yes, where you show sufficient interest. The Court held locus was established despite no decree for specific performance.
Does filing a Section 32-G application establish a right to buy?
No. The authority must first determine legal entitlement and then proceed according to law.
Establishing standing to challenge tenancy orders
- Separate the validity of your transaction from your standing to be heard; only the second is before the tribunal.
- Show a pending civil suit or contractual right over the same property to establish sufficient interest.
- List what the authority never examined — representation, notices, price fixation — and show each goes to the basis of the order.
- Ask for a time-bound fresh hearing rather than a decision on merits from the writ court.
Source. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Writ Petition No. 12947 of 2016 with Writ Petition No. 6409 of 2018, decided August 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Bombay and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in