Executive Instructions Can't Retrospectively Override Statutory Land Conversion Rules: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that executive instructions cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate a land conversion order validly passed under statutory rules. The Court observed that a Government Resolution cannot retrospectively override the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and Leasehold Lands into Occupancy Class-I Lands) Rules, 2019 or defeat vested rights accrued upon compliance with the statutory scheme.

Justice Kamal Khata further held that the revisional authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, cannot adjudicate contractual or civil rights between private parties which are required to be determined by a competent Civil Court. The Court observed that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 257 is supervisory in nature and is confined to examining the legality and propriety of orders passed by subordinate revenue authorities.

The Court held that the Government Resolution dated 14.07.2021 was merely an executive instruction and could not be applied retrospectively to invalidate a conversion order validly passed under the Conversion Rules of 2019. It noted that the petitioners had already acquired a vested right upon payment of the prescribed premium before issuance of the Government Resolution.

The Court further held that BPCL had no locus to challenge the conversion order. It observed that the conversion from leasehold rights to Occupancy Class-I was a matter exclusively between the State and the lessee. The Court rejected the contention that BPCL continued as a sub-lessee by holding over and observed that, if BPCL had any grievance arising out of the contractual relationship, its remedy lay before the Civil Court for recovery of damages or other civil reliefs.

The Court further held that the Suo Motu Revision Proceedings initiated by Respondent No.3 were unwarranted. It observed that the revisional authority established under Section 257 of the MLRC exercises only supervisory jurisdiction and does not possess plenary jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual disputes or determine civil rights between a lessee and a sub-lessee.

By deciding the contractual rights of the parties and treating them as a ground to interfere with the Collector's conversion order, the Revenue Minister had travelled beyond the limits of the jurisdiction conferred under Section 257, thereby committing a jurisdictional error.

“The Revisional Authority established under Section 257 of the MLRC is a supervisory jurisdiction. It does not have plenary jurisdiction to adjudicate all disputes that may arise between the lessee and the sub-lessee or the civil rights between them. The Revisional Authority cannot adjudicate rights that are required to be established by a Civil Court,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the common order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Revenue Minister, and restored the Collector's order dated 20.04.2021 converting the petitioner's leasehold rights into Occupancy Class-I.

Case Title: Dharampal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 4891 of 2025]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 313

Click Here To Read/Download Order