https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297502 Land validly excluded from the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by a municipal notification and a section 88(1)(b) reservation notification falls outside the Act's earlier tenancy protections. The proviso to section 43-C did not apply because it concerns rights already accrued in section 43-C areas, and section 88-A1 was unavailable since the lands were already within municipal limits before the relevant cut-off date. On these facts, tenancy rights could not arise under the Act, so the civil court could decide applicability without awaiting a Mamlatdar reference. The reference was unwarranted and the order refusing to vacate the injunction was set aside. en-us Mon, 26 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Sep 2021 12:03:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297502 Land validly excluded from the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by a municipal notification and a section 88(1)(b) reservation notification falls outside the Act's earlier tenancy protections. The proviso to section 43-C did not apply because it concerns rights already accrued in section 43-C areas, and section 88-A1 was unavailable since the lands were already within municipal limits before the relevant cut-off date. On these facts, tenancy rights could not arise under the Act, so the civil court could decide applicability without awaiting a Mamlatdar reference. The reference was unwarranted and the order refusing to vacate the injunction was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297502