No Transfer Without State’s Sanction Under Section 43 – Mere Possession Under Unregistered Sale Agreement Is Not a 'Transfer in Law': Bombay High Court

"When the Agreement Itself Requires State’s Permission for Validity, No Transfer Can Be Said to Occur in Its Absence," Bombay High Court reaffirming a core tenet of Maharashtra’s tenancy law: compliance with Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (MTAL Act) is mandatory for a valid transfer of land by a tenant-turned-owner. The Court upheld the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s order that set aside proceedings under Section 84C of the Act, ruling that there was no legally recognized “transfer” to attract the statutory consequences of invalidation and vesting in the State.

The case—Shri Govind Goma Gaikar (Deceased) through LRs v. Shri Gopal Babu Patil (Deceased) through LRs—centered around an unregistered Agreement for Sale executed in 1977 between parties claiming rights over an agricultural parcel in Panvel, Raigad. The central legal dispute involved whether this agreement, coupled with delivery of possession, amounted to a prohibited “transfer” under Section 43 of the MTAL Act, triggering Section 84C and consequent vesting of the land in the State.

"A Transfer That Never Took Place Cannot Be Declared Invalid – Section 84C Cannot Be Invoked Without a Transfer in Law"

At the heart of the dispute was an Agreement for Sale dated May 2, 1977, executed between the predecessors of the Gaikars and the Patils. The Patils, who had become deemed purchasers of the agricultural land under Section 32G of the MTAL Act, allegedly handed over possession of the land to the Gaikars. Years later, the Gaikars invoked Section 84C, seeking to invalidate the “transfer” and secure reallocation of the land in their own favour.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, rejecting the Gaikars' contention that possession under an unregistered agreement sufficed to constitute a transfer under tenancy law, held:

“The very Agreement for Sale... provided for a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the transfer – the permission of the State. In the absence of such permission, the Agreement for Sale itself became void and the transfer envisaged therein never came about.” [Para 30]

The Court decisively concluded that Section 43, which restricts the alienation of land acquired under tenancy protections without prior sanction of the Collector, was not attracted in the absence of an actual sale or conveyance.

Abuse of Protective Provisions – Court Flags “Cynical Reliance” on Section 84C

The High Court strongly condemned the conduct of the Gaikars, noting that their invocation of Section 84C was not in aid of the protected tenant-turned-owner (the Patils), but by the very party whose transaction would otherwise be nullified under the provision.

In scathing terms, the Court observed: “The Gaikars seek nullification of the very transaction that granted them interest in the Subject Land... only to benefit from the nullification by acquiring the same land from the State.” [Para 24]

Justice Sundaresan termed such use of Section 84C as an “abuse of protective statutory provisions”, declaring it contrary to the purpose of the MTAL Act, which aims to prevent exploitation of tiller-owners, not to enable transferees to perfect their title through forfeiture.

He further remarked: “To turn Section 84C on its head—to benefit the violative transferee at the expense of the allegedly violative transferor—would be contrary to the very objective and scheme of the MTAL Act.” [Para 28]

Unregistered Agreement + Possession ≠ Transfer Under MTAL Act

While the Gaikars attempted to rely on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882—which allows a party in possession under an agreement to protect that possession—the Court rejected the argument outright. It ruled that statutory compliance under the MTAL Act overrides equitable protections like Section 53A:

“Compliance with the MTAL Act was an integral requirement for any transfer to come about, and that not having been done... there was no transfer for purposes of Section 43.” [Para 33]

The Court was categorical that mere delivery of possession, even accompanied by a possession receipt and part-payment, could not substitute the legal mandate of a registered sale deed and prior State approval under tenancy laws.

Revenue Tribunal's Jurisdiction Upheld – Writ Court Declines Interference

The Gaikars also challenged the Tribunal's findings under Section 76 of the MTAL Act, alleging that it had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-evaluating facts. This contention too was rejected.

Justice Sundaresan emphasized that the Tribunal was within its rights to assess whether the jurisdictional fact of a “transfer” existed, stating:

“It was completely in order for the Impugned Order to have analysed if there had been a transfer of the nature contemplated in Section 43... The view expressed... is a reasonable one.” [Para 27, 32]

Further, the Court exercised its own writ discretion cautiously, refusing to interfere merely because another view was possible. The Petitioners’ delay in invoking their rights and their attempt to benefit from a transaction they themselves sought to invalidate weighed heavily against them:

“The conduct disentitled the petitioners from discretionary relief under Article 226 – Writ Court not bound to interfere merely because an alternative view is possible.” [Headnotes; Para 24–29]

Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s order dated 13.01.2020, holding that:

• There was no “transfer” in law to invoke Section 43;

• Proceedings under Section 84C were untenable;

• The Gaikars, as transferees, could not turn protective provisions to their advantage.

In doing so, the Court sent a strong message against the misuse of tenancy law remedies by transferees seeking to benefit from illegal or incomplete transactions.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2026