Section 36A MLR Code Cannot Revive Tribal Restoration Long After Land Converted in SRA
Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.4418 of 2025 of Jyoti Builders Vs. State of Maharashtra and others with Writ Petition No.4488 of 2025
This judgment is a strong precedent for developers and SRA societies facing late tribal restoration claims under Section 36A MLRC where the land has already become non-agricultural, slum-affected, and substantially redeveloped under statutory schemes.
The Bombay High Court held that Section 36A of the MLRC is inapplicable where the land has ceased to be agricultural land and has long been converted into slum land and redeveloped under an SRA scheme. The Court ruled that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to entertain the tribal restoration application because the foundational jurisdictional fact, namely the existence of agricultural land capable of personal cultivation by the tribal claimant, was absent
Section 36A(6) of the MLR Code – Restoration of Tribal Land
Jyoti Builders is implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on 4 plots of land admeasuring 12,606,70 sq. mtrs. situated at village Malad (East), at off Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (East) (‘the Project Property’) under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (‘Slum Act’), under valid permissions of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’). Out of the project property, a plot bearing CTS No. 619 is the subject matter of the Petition (‘the subject property’).
In our considered view, such attempt to abuse the process should be nipped in the bud at the first instance itself. Such belated Applications deserve to be terminated at the threshold and cannot be permitted to become tools of sophisticated way extortion in the hands of unscrupulous litigants. We find no material on record to show what steps Laxmibai’s father took to prevent slums on the land. It was the duty of the State to prevent proliferation of slums on the subject land. According to us, if Laxmibai has any claims then it can only be against the State who failed to prevent slums on her father’s land. In the event that the State pays Laxmibai compensation, the State may in turn hold its concerned officers responsible and take action against them for their inaction.
In the aforesaid factual position, we cannot permit the communication dated 23rd June 2025 to be implemented and Application dated 27th August 2019 cannot be considered. We are of the view that having permitted the Petitioners to take steps under the SRA Scheme it was not open for Laxmibai to insist on compliance with the Restoration Act or Section 36 of the MLRC. Such insistence, in the peculiar facts, is unsustainable.
