New Filters: Real Estate

If you are not happy with the results, please do another search

JSA Prism | Real Estate | June 2026

Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.

Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 2026: Attempt to encourage genuine industrial projects

In Maharashtra, purchasers acquiring agricultural land for industrial projects frequently encounter delays arising from land aggregation challenges, regulatory hurdles, litigation, and other factors beyond their control.

The Government of Maharashtra (“GoM”) has recently notified the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 2026 (“Amendment Act”) aligning several provisions of the tenancy legislations with the recently amended Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (“MLRC”), particularly in relation to conversion premium payable for non-agricultural use, with effect from April 15, 2026.

The Amendment Act, makes consequential amendments to the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“MTAL Act”), the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (“Hyderabad Tenancy Act”) and the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (“Vidarbha Tenancy Act”)

This prism provides an overview of the legal framework governing the acquisition of agricultural land for industrial use in Maharashtra, including the key changes introduced by the Amendment Act.

Overview of the existing framework

Under the existing framework of the MTAL Act, the Hyderabad Tenancy Act and the Vidarbha Tenancy Act, transfer of agricultural lands purchased by tenants is subject to various conditions, including prior sanction of the Collector and payment of nazarana fee.

Further, agricultural land purchased for bona fide industrial use was required to be utilised for industrial purposes within prescribed timelines, failing which the purchaser could face regulatory consequences, including exposure to penalties and restrictions on continued holding of such land.

Overview of the provisions introduced under the Amendment Act

Simplification of transfer framework

Prior to the amendment, under Section 43 of the MTAL Act, transfer of agricultural land purchased by a tenant under the tenancy laws could be transferred only with the prior sanction of the Collector. However, such transfer was permitted without Collector’s prior sanction if 10 (ten) years had elapsed from the date of purchase of such land by the tenant. Further, any sale under this Section 43 of the MTAL Act was subject to the following conditions:

payment of nazarana fee calculated at 40 (forty) times the land revenue assessment;
the purchaser must be an agriculturist;
the purchaser must not hold land in excess of the ceiling areapermissible under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961
the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 must not be violated.

In practice, since the land revenue assessments were typically nominal, the nazarana fee payable was minimal and had limited practical significance from a revenue collection or regulatory perspective.

The Amendment Act deletes the requirement of payment of nazarana fee under Section 43(1) of the MTAL Act and the corresponding provisions under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act and the Vidarbha Tenancy Act. This removes the requirement for payment of nazarana fee prior to transfer and intends to simplify the transfer framework and reduce procedural requirements.

Occupancy class-I land restriction

The Amendment Act substitutes the existing provisions under the relevant tenancy legislations to clarify that only land held as occupancy class-I[1] land will be eligible to be purchased for bona fide industrial use. Additionally, the purchaser of such land is now required to pay one-time conversion premium in accordance with Section 47 of the MLRC.

The amendment intends to align the tenancy legislation with the revised non-agricultural conversion framework introduced under the MLRC whereby recurring non-agricultural assessment has been replaced with a one-time conversion premium payment.

Overview of the revised penalty framework for failure to inform the Collector of the industrial use of agricultural land

Under Section 63-1A of the MTAL Act, purchase of agricultural land by non-agriculturists for bona fide industrial use is permitted without obtaining the Collector’s permission. The purchaser acquiring agricultural land for bona fide industrial use is to put such land to bonafide industrial use and inform the Collector within the prescribed period upon commencement of such industrial use in order to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of purchase under the relevant tenancy legislations. Under the erstwhile provisions failure to intimate the Collector within the stipulated timeline attracted liability to pay the applicable non-agricultural assessment under the MLRC together with a penalty which could extend up to 20 (twenty) times the amount of such non-agricultural assessment, as determined by the Collector in accordance with the applicable rules.

While the requirement to intimate the Collector is retained, the Amendment Act now requires the purchaser to pay one time conversion premium which may be leviable under Section 47 of MLRC, together with such penalty which may not exceed 5 (five) times the amount of such conversion premium on failure to put the land to bona fide industrial use and failure to intimate the Collector within 30 (thirty) days from the date of acquisition and upon commencement of such industrial use.

Enhanced regulatory scrutiny

In addition to the significant changes discussed above, the Amendment Act now provides that the Collector can permit subsequent sale of land purchased for industrial use, or for any alternative non-agricultural purpose only with the prior approval from GoM. This increases regulatory scrutiny in transactions involving industrial lands and may have implications for future restructuring, transfer and repurposing of industrial land holdings.

Steps involved in acquisition of agricultural land for bona fide industrial use under the amended regime

The purchaser at the outset is required to verify that the subject land is held as occupancy class-I land by verifying the revenue records, including the 7/12 extract of such land.
The parties would thereafter proceed with execution and registration of the conveyance/lease documentation. From a transactional perspective, the transfer documentation should appropriately record the proposed bona fide industrial use and status of the land as occupancy class-I land.
The purchaser is required to pay the applicable one-time conversion premium under Section 47 of MLRC to the Collector within the prescribed period following acquisition instead of the earlier nazarana fee payment.
The purchaser would thereafter be required to obtain the necessary planning permissions, layout approvals, building permissions, environmental approvals and other project-specific regulatory approvals from the relevant planning and sectoral authorities.
The purchaser is required to put the land to bona fide industrial use within 5 (five) years from the date of acquisition. Upon commencement of such industrial use, the purchaser is further required to inform the Collector within 30 (thirty) days regarding utilisation of the land for the approved industrial purpose (For lands acquired between May 17, 2004 and January 1, 2016, the Amendment Act introduces a relief provision extending the overall timeline for commencement of bona fide industrial use to 15 (fifteen) years from the date of acquisition).
Upon failure of the purchaser to put the land to bona fide industrial use, the purchaser must inform the Collector within the prescribed timelines. The Collector may grant extension for a further period of up to 5 (five) years, subject to payment of non-utilisation charges calculated at 2% per annum of the market value of the land as per the applicable Annual Statement of Rates. Additionally, where delays arise due to litigation, land aggregation challenges or other circumstances beyond the control of the purchaser, the GoM may grant a further extension of up to 3 (three) years upon payment of premium equivalent to 10% of the prevailing market value of the land.
Permission for sale of lands acquired for industrial purposes or use thereof for any alternative non-agricultural purpose requires approval of the Collector together with prior approval of the GoM.
In cases of non-compliance with the statutory conditions governing industrial use, the land may become liable for resumption by the Collector and vesting in the GoM in accordance with the applicable provisions of the tenancy legislation. The framework further contemplates preferential re-transfer to the original transferor, failing which the land may be disposed of through public auction in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Apart from compliance under the tenancy legislation, purchasers would also be required to undertake consequential mutation entries in the revenue records and comply with applicable planning, environmental, factory laws and sector-specific regulatory requirements throughout the implementation and operational phases of the project.

Legal and practical implications

The Amendment Act is likely to provide substantial relief to industrial purchasers and developers who acquired agricultural land for industrial purposes but were unable to operate projects within earlier timelines due to regulatory or commercial constraints.

The extension of timelines and introduction of a statutory extension mechanism may improve implementation certainty for large industrial, logistics, warehousing, manufacturing and infrastructure projects where land aggregation and approvals typically require extended timelines.

By linking industrial land conversion to the one-time conversion premium mechanism under Section 47 of the MLRC, the State of Maharashtra appears to be moving towards a more consolidated and uniform framework governing agricultural land conversion and industrial use across legislations. Although the Amendment Act streamlines the regulatory framework for industrial acquisition of agricultural lands, the shift from assessment-based charges to market value-linked conversion premiums may increase the overall cost of acquisition and conversion. Since the conversion premium is now determined with reference to the market value of the land under MLRC, the financial burden on industrial purchasers may be significantly higher than under the earlier regime, where charges were linked to comparatively nominal land revenue assessments.

The enhanced supervisory role of the GoM may also have procedural implications for ongoing and future industrial land transactions, particularly in cases involving restructuring, assignment or change in proposed land use.

Conclusion

The Amendment Act represents another significant step in Maharashtra’s broader effort to rationalise land regulation and facilitate industrial development in the State. Recent measures, including the amendments to MLRC eliminating the requirement of obtaining separate non-agricultural permissions and replacing recurring non-agricultural assessments with a one-time conversion premium, reflect a policy shift towards simplifying land administration and reducing procedural bottlenecks.

By removing outdated procedural requirements such as nazarana, extending implementation timelines for industrial projects, and aligning the tenancy legislations with the revised conversion premium regime under MLRC, the Amendment Act seeks to address several practical concerns faced by industrial purchasers and developers. Overall, the reforms are likely to improve commercial certainty and implementation flexibility for industrial and infrastructure projects across Maharashtra, while continuing to preserve regulatory oversight through tenancy and land revenue framework.

This Prism has been prepared by:

M. Arun Kumar
Partner

Deepak Chowdhury
Partner

Rachana Magdum
Senior Associate

Shaunak Deshpande
Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected].

[1] Sub- Section (2) of Section 29 in Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 – “Occupants—Class I shall consist of persons who— (a) hold unalienated land in perpetuity and without any restrictions on the right to transfer, (b) immediately before the commencement of this Code hold land in full occupancy or Bhumiswami rights without any restrictions on the right to transfer in accordance with the provisions of any law relating to land revenue in force in any part of the State immediately before such commencement, and (c) on the 21st April 2018, being the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Amendment) and the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Inclusion of certain Bhumidharis in Occupants—Class I Permission) Rules (Repeal) Act, 2018, were holding the land in Vidarbha in Bhumiswami rights with restrictions on right to transfer, or in Bhumidhari rights in any local area in Vidarbha.”

Tags Business Law India, Industrial Development India, Industrial Projects India, Infrastructure Development India, JSA, Land Acquisition India, Land Conversion India, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Update India, Maharashtra Industry, Maharashtra Land Laws, Real Estate Law India

JSA advises LICHFL Asset Management Company Limited in relation to issue of Unlisted NCDs by Lifestyle Group

Magnifying glass focusing on illuminated high-rise buildings in a modern cityscape at night

JSA advised and represented LICHFL Asset Management Company Limited on their subscription to unlisted, secured, senior, redeemable non-convertible debentures aggregating up to INR 130,00,00,000/- (“NCDs”) issued by Lifestyle Housing Private Limited, a company in the Lifestyle Developers group, for funding their real estate project in Chennai.

JSA’s mandate involved extensive due diligence on the real estate property; and drafting, negotiation, and execution of the debenture and security documents, ensuring legal and structural compliance across all stakeholders. JSA delivered comprehensive and end-to-end support culminating in the successful closure of the transaction.

The transaction was led by Vinod Kumar, Partner, Varun Sriram, Partner, Srinivasan M.D, Partner, with support from Saibarath, Senior Associate, Nandini Menon V, Senior Associate, Thiyagarajan B, Associate, and Ancy Jacob, Associate.

Tags Corporate Finance India, Debenture Documentation, Debt Capital Markets India, JSA Advocates and Solicitors, Legal Due Diligence India, LICHFL Asset Management, Lifestyle Housing Private Limited, NCD Issue India, Non Convertible Debentures India, Real Estate Financing India, Real Estate Law India, Real Estate Project Chennai, Secured Debentures India, Unlisted Debentures India, Vinod Kumar JSA

JSA represented and advised Manipal Health Enterprises Limited in INR 495 crore (USD 52.1 million) acquisition of land and hospital building

JSA Advocates & Solicitors (JSA) advised and assisted Manipal Health Enterprises Limited (formerly known as Manipal Health Enterprises Private Limited) in the acquisition of a land bringing the total landholding to 11,342.77 sq. mtrs. and hospital building for a deal value of INR 495 crore (USD 52.1 million).

JSA also advised Manipal Health Enterprises Limited in the acquisition of hospital building bringing the total hospital acquired to 43,200 sq. mtrs i.e. 4,65,008.89 sq feet. The property was acquired from Khubchandani Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Khubchandani Properties and Investments Pvt Ltd and Perfect Realty Pvt Ltd. JSA conducted comprehensive legal due diligence and also drafted and negotiated the transaction documents for acquisition of this property.

The transaction was led by Farid Karachiwala, Partner, with support from Vishwa Mehta, Senior Associate, and Krutika Mehta, Associate.

Tags Corporate Law India, Farid Karachiwala JSA, Healthcare Infrastructure India, Healthcare Real Estate, Hospital Acquisition India, Hospital Property India, JSA Advocates and Solicitors, Khubchandani Hospitals, Land Acquisition India, Legal Due Diligence India, Manipal Health Enterprises, Mergers And Acquisitions India, Property Transaction India, Real Estate Law India, Real Estate Transaction India

JSA Prism | Insolvency Law | May 2026

Abstract arrangement of Indian Rupee symbols forming a circular structure with reflections and surrounding smoke.

Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.

The Supreme Court of India upholds inclusion of subsidiary assets in resolution plans through lifting of the corporate veil

In an important decision involving the role of industrial development authorities in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of its lessees/ allotees, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority[1] has overturned a decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) dated January 30, 2023 (“Impugned Order”), filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (“GNIDA”).

By way of the Impugned Order, the NCLAT had set aside the National Company Law Tribunal’s (“NCLT”) approval of 3 (three) project-wise resolution plans of Earth Infrastructures Limited (“CD”). The NCLAT held that the said plans erroneously included the assets of the CD’s subsidiaries, without seeking permission for transfer from GNIDA, being the principal lessor/owner of the said assets. Accordingly, the NCLAT made GNIDA part of the CIRP, and issued directions to the Resolution Professional (“RP”) to invite fresh resolution plans which may be considered only after payment of GNIDA’s dues and obtaining necessary permissions for transfer of assets to the CD.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the successful resolution applicants, namely Alpha Corp Development (“Alpha”) and Roma Unicon (“Roma”) against the Impugned Order. In doing so, the Supreme Court lifted the corporate veil to permit the inclusion of the assets of the CD’s subsidiary in the project-wise resolution plans, and accordingly upheld the said plans. The Supreme Court also highlighted the continuous inaction of GNIDA to pursue its claims under CIRP, and reiterated the strict timelines contemplated by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Brief facts

GNIDA had executed lease deeds for 3 (three) separate plots with Earth Towne Infrastructures Private Limited (“ETIPL”), Neo Multimedia Limited (“NML”), and Nishtha Software Private Limited (“NSPL”). ETIPL, NML, and NSPL were all subsidiaries of the CD, and in effect, the CD was undertaking the development of all 3 (three) plots.
At the instance of a financial creditor, CIRP was initiated against the CD, vide an order dated June 6, 2018, passed by the NCLT.
During the insolvency process, GNIDA did not submit its claim in respect of the leased plots, despite the RP informing GNIDA about the ongoing CIRP against the CD.
Pursuant to issuance of Form G by the RP, Roma and Alpha submitted respective project-wise resolution plans of the CD, which were approved by the NCLT vide separate orders. The said resolution plans dealt with the plots leased to the CD’s subsidiaries and treated them as the assets of the CD.
Despite GNIDA’s failure to submit its claim in a timely manner, both Roma and Alpha undertook to satisfy the estimated dues of GNIDA, without transferring the burden to the homebuyers. Roma and Alpha also undertook to complete construction and deliver the pending projects.
In January 2022, GNIDA filed an appeal against the NCLT’s approval of the resolution plans. The NCLAT issued the Impugned Order, allowing GNIDA’s appeals on the ground that the resolution plans dealt with third party assets of the CD, and the same had been included without seeking permission of GNIDA. The NCLAT also observed that GNIDA was required to be made party to the CIRP by the RP before approval of the resolution plans.
The successful resolution applicants, Roma and Alpha, along with the CD, approached the Supreme Court in the present civil appeal(s). GNIDA also filed a cross-appeal against the Impugned Order, on the grounds that the NCLAT had restrained it from levying penal interest due to delay and inaction on its part.

Issues

The main issues for consideration were the following:

whether Roma and Alpha could have treated the assets of ETIPL, NML, and NSPL as the CD’s assets in their resolution plans; and
whether GNIDA erred in not raising its claim in a timely manner during CIRP and not monitoring the progress of the various projects being developed by the CD on its leased plots?

Findings and analysis

On conduct of GNIDA

The Supreme Court observed that GNIDA was duly informed about the initiation of CIRP by the RP but failed to intimate its dues in time or respond to the RP satisfactorily. GNIDA failed to proactively pursue its claims and filed them either belatedly or after the approval of the resolution plans by the NCLT.
Despite the operation of a status quo order in respect of the plots, GNIDA cancelled the allotment of NML and NSPL, which it later withdrew and apologised for.
GNIDA cannot approbate and reprobate, claiming that the CD does not have any right over the leased plots, while simultaneously insisting on repayment of its dues under the CIRP.
GNIDA was well aware that the development rights over the leased plots controlled by EIL were included in the CIRP, as was correctly mentioned in the Information Memorandum.
GNIDA merely sent ‘intermittent and sporadic’ default notices without following up on a regular basis. Crucially, most notices were issued after the commencement of the CIRP.
GNIDA cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the CD was executing development of the projects, which is borne out from its own communications. GNIDA failed to keep track of and monitor the development of the projects, displaying persistent inaction and ineptitude.

On inclusion of assets of CD’s subsidiaries in the resolution plan

Relying on decisions in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escorts Limited and Ors.[2], and ArcelorMittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors.[3], the Supreme Court observed that the CD and its subsidiaries (i.e., ETIPL, NML, and NSPL) were inextricably connected so as to form part of one concern, thus a fit case to lift the corporate veil.
The Supreme Court observed that EIL was the ‘main driving force’ in the development of the projects as well as payment of GNIDA’s dues, and the subsidiary companies were merely a front. Accordingly, the Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary to deal with the issue raised under Sections 18[4] and 25[5] of the IBC re the scope of the term ‘assets’.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of development rights held by the CD’s subsidiaries in the resolution plans approved in respect of the CD.

Limited adoption of legacy stalled projects policy

The Supreme Court took note of the Government of Uttar Pradesh’s policy dated December 21, 2023 (“2023 GO”), by way of which stalled real estate projects were proposed to be rehabilitated by offering concessionary measures to allottees regarding terms of payment.
The Supreme Court observed that while the 2023 GO is applicable only to group housing projects, the principles underlying the policy, i.e. to secure completion of stalled development projects, may be applied to commercial projects “to some extent to suit the present situation”.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court applied the 2023 GO to Roma and Alpha, and directed that no penal interest, time-extension charges, and other penal charges may be levied by GNIDA in the recovery of its pending dues.

Final order and directions issued

The Supreme Court granted a 24 (twenty-four) month extension to Roma and Alpha (commencing from June 1, 2026), during which they are directed to clear the pending dues of GNIDA, sans any penal/time-extension charges, as mentioned above. For this extended 24 (twenty-four) month period, owing to its material lapses, GNIDA would also not be entitled to any interest on the principal amount of its dues.
Subject to these conditions, the Supreme Court restored the resolution plans of Alpha and Roma. The Supreme Court also directed Alpha and Roma to complete their respective pending projects within the timeframes indicated in their resolution plans.
The Supreme Court also directed Roma and Alpha to satisfy GNIDA’s dues without burdening the homebuyers/ allottees of units.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals filed by Roma and Alpha against the Impugned Order, and dismissed the appeal filed by GNIDA.

The judgment thus reinstated the resolution plans of Roma and Alpha, overturning the Impugned Order passed by the NCLAT, and passed detailed directions to both GNIDA and the successful resolution applicants regarding the completion of pending projects and delivery of units to homebuyers.