Summary: The Bombay High Court decided on a complicated land fight between the Gaikars and the Patils over a piece of land in Panvel. The court found that the Gaikars' claim to the land was not valid because there were problems with the original sale agreement.
In this case, Govind Goma Gaikar, Smt. Laxmi Govind Gaikar (both deceased, represented by their family members, including Shri. Shankar Govind Gaikar), and Gopal Babu Patil (deceased, represented by his family members, including Smt. Rukmini Gopal Patil and others) were arguing over a piece of land in Village Ariwali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The Gaikars said they got the land from the Patils through a public process under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (MTAL Act).
The argument goes back to May 2, 1977, when the Gaikars and Patils made a deal to sell the land. The Gaikars said they took over the land after paying Rs. 6,000.
"The Patils are said to have sold the land to the Gaikars, with possession too having been handed over to Gaikars."
The Gaikars filed a complaint in 1995, saying the land transfer was against the rules under the MTAL Act. The local revenue officer agreed with them in 1997, saying the transfer was illegal. This meant the land became the state's property, which later sold it to the Gaikars in 2000.
The Patils challenged this decision in 2000, but their appeal was first dismissed because it was late. However, in 2009, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ordered a new hearing. This back-and-forth continued until 2020, when the Tribunal decided that the original agreement wasn't a valid transfer.
On January 30, 2026, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan agreed with the Tribunal's decision, saying the sale agreement didn't meet the legal requirements under the MTAL Act.
"The view in the Impugned Order, namely, that the Subject Land was not transferred within the meaning of the law, for the drastic effect of forfeiture of the Subject Land to come about, is a reasonable one."
The court decided that the Gaikars couldn't claim ownership because the initial agreement didn't have the necessary state permissions. This decision highlights the importance of following legal rules in land deals.
