TL;DR
- Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 requires the previous sanction of the Collector before occupancy held by a tribal is transferred to a non-tribal.
- Rule 4(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975 restricts sale to a non-tribal except where the non-tribal intends to use the land for a non-agricultural purpose. Leasing and mortgaging remain permitted for agricultural use.
- On 26 May 2025 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld Rule 4(1)(a) in Mahendarsingh Digvijaysingh Mukne v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2018.
- The petitioner there wanted to sell to a non-tribal tenant family that had worked the land since 1940. The Collector refused because the intended use was agricultural. The High Court did not disturb that.
- The Court held that individual hardship by itself cannot invalidate a provision enacted for tribal welfare under Article 46, and found no discrimination because a tribal may transfer freely to another tribal.
- A power of attorney does not solve this. If the underlying transfer needs sanction, dressing it as an agency arrangement changes nothing.
If the occupant in the chain of title was a tribal and the transfer to a non-tribal went through without the previous sanction of the Collector under section 36A, the buyer did not acquire the land, and no amount of subsequent paperwork repairs it. This is the most under-checked restriction on tribal land in Maharashtra, and the belt where second homes are being built is exactly the belt where it bites.
What section 36A does
Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 makes the previous sanction of the Collector a condition of transferring occupancy from a tribal to a non-tribal. The word doing the work is previous. Sanction is not a formality obtained afterwards to tidy up a completed sale; it is the thing that makes the transfer capable of happening at all.
The section does not stop tribal occupants from dealing with their land. A tribal may transfer to another tribal without this restriction, and the Bombay High Court has treated that fact as the answer to the argument that the provision discriminates. What the section does is control the exit of land out of tribal ownership.
The 1975 Rules, and the restriction people do not expect
Rule 4(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975 restricts sale of occupancy to a non-tribal except where the non-tribal intends to use the land for a non-agricultural purpose. Leasing and mortgaging to a non-tribal for agricultural use remain permitted.
Read that carefully, because it inverts what most buyers assume. The buyer who wants to keep farming the land is in a worse position than the buyer who wants to convert it. A family that has cultivated a parcel for three generations and wants to buy it and carry on cultivating is precisely the case the rule blocks.
| Transaction | Position under the rule |
|---|---|
| Tribal to tribal | Unrestricted by this rule |
| Sale to a non-tribal for agricultural use | Restricted |
| Sale to a non-tribal for a non-agricultural purpose | Within the exception, still subject to Collector sanction under section 36A |
| Lease or mortgage to a non-tribal for agricultural use | Permitted |
The May 2025 judgment, and why it matters now
On 26 May 2025 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices A. S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil decided Mahendarsingh Digvijaysingh Mukne v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2018, and upheld the validity of Rule 4(1)(a).
The facts are worth stating because they are as sympathetic as such facts get. The petitioner, a tribal, wished to transfer ancestral agricultural land to a non-tribal tenant whose father had worked that property since 1940. The Collector refused permission under Rule 4(1)(a)(i) on the ground that the land would continue to be used for agriculture. The petitioner then challenged the rule itself as constitutionally invalid.
The Court held the rule legally justifiable as a measure preventing non-tribals from accumulating tribal agricultural land, referring to the State’s obligation under Article 46 of the Constitution. It found no discriminatory classification, since tribals retain unrestricted rights of transfer to other tribals. And it recorded that section 36A gives the Collector discretion within the statutory framework without imposing an unreasonable restriction.
Individual hardship by itself cannot be a ground to hold a provision to be invalid.
Bombay High Court, Mahendarsingh Digvijaysingh Mukne v. State of Maharashtra, 26 May 2025
For a buyer, the practical reading is straightforward. Eighty-five years of continuous cultivation by the intending purchaser’s family, an entirely willing tribal seller, and a High Court petition were together not enough. A twelve-month acquaintance and an assurance that it will be sorted out later is not going to be enough either.
How the problem arrives in a title chain
Almost nobody sets out to buy tribal land. The exposure comes in through the chain, and usually in one of these shapes.
- An old unsanctioned transfer. A parcel left tribal hands decades ago without sanction, has changed hands twice since, and the current seller is entirely innocent of the history. The defect travels with the land, not with the person.
- Sanction that does not match the use. Sanction was granted on a stated non-agricultural purpose that never materialised. The file is clean on its face and the ground contradicts it.
- A power of attorney arrangement. The tribal occupant remains on the record while a non-tribal controls, develops and eventually sells the land through an agency document. This is a structure, not a transfer, and it does not survive scrutiny.
- Development agreement dressed as a lease. Leasing for agricultural use is permitted, so a long lease is sometimes used to carry what is commercially a sale. The substance is what will be examined.
- Partial or informal sanction. An oral assurance, a note on a file, an application made and never decided. None of these is previous sanction.
What to check, and in what order
| Step | What you are looking for | Where it lives |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Identify every occupant in the chain | Whether any holder was a tribal occupant | 7/12, the mutation series, older village records |
| 2. Locate the transfer out of tribal hands | The exact entry and its date | Ferfar or mutation register |
| 3. Ask for the section 36A sanction order | A written order of the Collector, previous to the transfer | Collector office record, produced by the seller |
| 4. Read the purpose stated in the sanction | Whether the stated non-agricultural purpose was real | The order itself, checked against ground use |
| 5. Check the area for Scheduled Area status | Additional procedural requirements may apply | The applicable notification for the taluka |
| 6. Test any POA or long lease against substance | Whether the arrangement is a disguised transfer | The instruments, read together |
On step 5, there is a further layer worth flagging honestly. A notification dated 14 June 2016 is recorded as modifying the position for section 36A by requiring prior Gram Sabha sanction before the Collector allows a transfer of occupancy from a tribal to a non-tribal. We were not able to retrieve the text of that notification while preparing this article, so treat it as a line of enquiry to confirm with your advocate for the specific taluka rather than as a settled statement of the requirement.
What a buyer should conclude
The restriction is not a technicality that gets waived for a good story, and the May 2025 judgment is recent, considered and unhelpful to anyone hoping otherwise. If the chain runs through a tribal occupant and the sanction order cannot be produced and read, the parcel is not purchasable, whatever the price and whatever the assurance.
The corollary is worth stating too. Where a proper section 36A sanction exists, was previous to the transfer, and matches the actual use, the position is sound and the parcel is not tainted merely by having once been tribal land. The document is the difference.
Frequently asked questions
Can a non-tribal buy tribal land in Maharashtra
Only with the previous sanction of the Collector under section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, and Rule 4(1)(a) restricts sale to a non-tribal except where the non-tribal intends non-agricultural use.
What is section 36A
The provision of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 that makes the previous sanction of the Collector a condition of transferring occupancy held by a tribal to a non-tribal.
What happens if I already bought without sanction
The transfer is not valid merely because it was registered, paid for and followed by possession. The defect attaches to the land and passes down the chain, so take advice on the specific chain rather than assuming time has cured it.
Does a power of attorney solve the problem
No. If the underlying transaction is a transfer requiring sanction, structuring it as an agency arrangement does not change what it is.
Can a tribal sell to another tribal
Yes. The Bombay High Court treated the unrestricted right of transfer between tribals as the reason the restriction is not discriminatory.
Did the Bombay High Court strike down the restriction
No. On 26 May 2025 in Mahendarsingh Digvijaysingh Mukne v. State of Maharashtra the Court upheld Rule 4(1)(a), holding that individual hardship by itself cannot invalidate a provision enacted for tribal welfare.
Buying in the Sahyadri or Palghar belt? Ask for the section 36A sanction order before anything else. If it cannot be produced and read, the price is irrelevant.
Related reading
- Private Forest Land in Maharashtra: Why Karjat and Konkan Plots Get Stuck
- Gairan Land in Maharashtra: Why Encroached Village Commons Never Get Clean Title
- Land title verification in Maharashtra: the complete document checklist
- Occupant Class 1 vs Class 2 land in Maharashtra
- Power of attorney in land transactions
- Tribal land records: Form 7E and 12E
- The risks of buying land in India
Citations and sources
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, section 36A — text
- Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975, Rule 4(1)(a) — bare rules
- Mahendarsingh Digvijaysingh Mukne v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2018, Bombay High Court, 26 May 2025, Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil JJ — case report
- Notification dated 14 June 2016 on modifications to section 36A requiring prior Gram Sabha sanction — listed on the Raj Bhavan Maharashtra document index, but the document page redirected and could not be read in preparing this article. Verify before relying on it
