The Bombay High Court has ruled that agricultural land purchased by a tenant under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, cannot be transferred by a Will within the restricted period and must devolve according to statutory succession laws. The Court held that such land, when inherited by a woman from her husband, will revert to the husband’s heirs if she dies without children.
The ruling came in a long-standing dispute arising from tenancy proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act, which allows cultivating tenants to purchase the land they till. The case concerned land originally held by Mahadeo, who was recognised as a tenant as on April 1, 1957. After his death, his widow Parvatibai was declared entitled to ownership and a purchase certificate under the tenancy law.
During the pendency of a writ petition challenging orders of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Parvatibai died in March 2016. A contesting party, related to Parvatibai through her natal family, claimed rights over the land on the basis of a registered Will allegedly executed by her in 2000. On the other hand, Mahadeo’s relatives claimed that they were entitled to succeed as legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Justice Amit Borkar rejected the claim based on the Will, holding that Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act imposes a clear restriction on the transfer of land purchased under tenancy provisions. The Court observed that a Will amounts to an “assignment” under the Act and becomes operative only upon the death of the testator. Since Parvatibai acquired ownership rights in 2012 and died in 2016, the mandatory ten-year restriction on transfer had not expired, rendering the Will legally ineffective.
The Court further held that once the Will is excluded, succession must follow Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. Under this provision, property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband, in the absence of children, devolves upon the heirs of the husband and not upon her natal family. On this basis, the Court recognised Mahadeo’s relatives as the legal representatives of Parvatibai.
While disposing of the writ petition, the High Court clarified that even if the Revenue Tribunal’s decision was assumed to be correct, the benefit of the purchase certificate under Section 32-G would necessarily flow to Parvatibai’s legal heirs. The Court therefore held that the husband’s heirs were entitled to the tenancy purchase rights.
The operation of the judgment has been stayed for six weeks to allow the contesting parties to seek further remedies.
