Bombay High Court Holds Agreement-for-Sale Holder Has Locus to Challenge Tenancy Purchase Orders Even Without a Specific-Performance Decree

Naresh Kesarimal Mehta & Anr. v. Shardabai Ganesh Oze (Since Deceased Through LRs.) & Ors. | Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction | 31 August 2026

The Bombay High Court allowed two connected writ petitions and quashed orders of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that had rejected the petitioners' revision applications against tenancy purchase-price orders passed under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, on the ground of lack of locus standi. The Court held that a person holding a registered Agreement for Sale, who has paid substantial consideration and instituted a suit for specific performance, has a legally recognisable interest sufficient to be treated as an 'aggrieved person,' even without first obtaining a decree for specific performance. The matters were remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording an effective hearing to all concerned parties.

Background

1. The dispute concerned agricultural land at Village Shirdhon, Taluka Panvel, over which Respondent Nos. 2-15 claimed tenancy rights under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
2. The Petitioners claimed to be purchasers of the land under a registered Agreement for Sale dated 29 May 2007 and an irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 19 October 2006, having paid entire consideration of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-.
3. The A.L.T., Panvel fixed the purchase price in favour of Respondent Nos. 2-13 by order dated 22 February 2011, upheld in appeal by the S.D.O., Panvel on 24 May 2012.
4. The Petitioners' Revision Applications before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were dismissed on 29 March 2016 and 7 March 2017, on the ground that the Petitioners, being non-parties to the original tenancy proceedings and lacking a decree for specific performance, had no locus.
5. A related Special Civil Suit (No. 329 of 2012) seeking specific performance of the Agreement for Sale was pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, with a status quo order in force.
6. The Petitioners also raised objections regarding the validity of Powers of Attorney relied upon by rival claimants and the withdrawal of an earlier Revision Application without proper authority.

Court's Observations

1. The Court held that ownership is not the sole test for being an 'aggrieved person'; a person with a legally recognisable interest prejudicially affected by an order is entitled to challenge it, relying on Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai and A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P.
2. The registered Agreement for Sale, payment of substantial consideration, the Power of Attorney, the pending civil suit for specific performance and the status quo order, taken together, established a real and substantial interest in the property even though the Petitioners were not yet owners.
3. Section 64 of the Tenancy Act, prescribing the procedure for sale of agricultural land, was held not to bar a person holding an Agreement for Sale from challenging a Section 32-G order; enforceability of the Agreement remains a distinct question from locus.
4. The Tribunal could not reject the Petitioners' challenge merely because they were strangers to the original tenancy proceedings, since a non-party may challenge an order if prejudicially affected by it, per Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties and State of Punjab v. Amar Singh.
5. The Court found unresolved questions concerning the authority of persons who appeared in the tenancy proceedings, alleged revocation of Powers of Attorney, and earlier revenue entries, which the A.L.T. and S.D.O. had failed to properly examine.
6. The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the final ownership of the property or the enforceability of the Agreement for Sale, leaving those questions open for the competent civil court.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Sections 32-G, 64 and 70(b), Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
2. Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, (1970) 2 SCC 484.
3. Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma, (2003) 1 SCC 34.
4. A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P., (2011) 7 SCC 616.
5. Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties Private Limited, (1970) 3 SCC 573.
6. State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, (1974) 2 SCC 70.
7. Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammani v. The State of Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 485.

Case Details :

Court Name: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 12947 of 2016 with Writ Petition No. 6409 of 2018

Case / Party Name: Naresh Kesarimal Mehta & Anr. v. Shardabai Ganesh Oze (Since Deceased Through LRs.) & Ors.

Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Coram / Judges: Amit Borkar, J.

Date of Decision: 31 August 2026

Letters Patent / Appeals (if any): None; Writ Petitions under Article 226/227 challenging Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal orders

Single-Judge decision clarifying the 'aggrieved person' test for Agreement-for-Sale holders in tenancy proceedings; useful persuasive precedent though confined to remand.