Back
2003 Supreme(SC) 1267
2003(8) Supreme 751
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Ramakant Dattatraya Deshpande -Appellant
versus
Dadu Bhagoji Patil (D) through Lrs. and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1823 of 1998
Decided on 12-12-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : U.U. Lalit and Ms. V.D. Khanna, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ashok Desai, Sr. Advocate (AC), Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu, Advocate.
Headnote:Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sections 32, 29, 43A and 88C-Tillers day-By impugned judgment High Court held that relationship between parties of landlord and tenant ceased on tillers day" i.e. 1-4-1957 by operation of Section 32 of the Act even though landlord-appellant was minor-All proceedings of termination of tenancy were held invalid in law and liable to be ignored-Appeal-Concurrent findings of Authorities under the Act that lands involved were given for sugarcane cultivation and leases to such land by virtue of Section 43A, provisions of Section 32 were not applicable-Landlord had already obtained certificate of exemption of land from operation of provisions in Section 32 to 32R of the Act as lands were "economic holdings"-Authorities under the Act rightly held that proceedings u/s 32G to enable tenant to purchase land as deemed purchaser" u/s 32 were liable to be dropped-Impugned judgment of High Court was liable to be set aside.
Held : In our considered opinion, the landlord deserves to succeed in this appeal on the alternative grounds. There is clear concurrent finding of the Authorities under the Act that the lands involved were given for sugarcane cultivation and to leases of such lands, by virtue of provisions contained in Section 43A, the provisions mentioned in the said section including in Section 32 are not applicable. (Para 11)
We have also mentioned above that the landlord had instituted proceedings under Section 88C of the Act seeking certificate of exemption of the lands from operation of the provisions contained in Section 32 to 32R of the Act as the lands were economic holdings within the definition of the Act having annual income not exceeding Rs. 1500/-. On the said application under Section 88C of the Act, a certificate was issued in favour of the landlord. The proceedings declaring the lands to have been granted for sugarcane cultivation under Section 43A and the certificate granted under Section 88C of the Act clearly took out the lands in question from the purview of provisions of Section 32 to 32R of the Act. The above orders in favour of the landlord under Section 43A and 88C were taken up by the tenant to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and they have attained finality in favour of the landlord. Those orders were not separately challenged by the tenant in further proceedings before the High Court. Since the above orders under Section 43A and Section 88C have become final and conclusive between the parties, the authorities under the Act rightly held that proceedings under Section 32G, to enable the tenant to purchase the land as deemed purchaser under Section 32, were liable to be dropped. It has also come on record that during his minority the landlord, through his natural guardian, terminated the tenancy of the tenant on the ground of continuous defaults in payment of rent. He thereafter instituted proceedings under Section 29(2) of the Act and obtained possession of the lands. (Para 12)
JUDGMENT
Dharmadhikari, J.-The petitioner is landlord of the lands involved, within the meaning of provisions contained in Chapter III of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner feels aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17th November 1997 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay whereby, reversing concurrent findings and orders of the three forums under the Act, the case has been remanded to the original authority, i.e. Additional Tehsildar A.L.T., Karvir, District Kolhapur for deciding afresh the proceedings initiated under Section 32G of the Act.
2. The provisions of the Act came up for consideration of this Court in the case of Patel Chunibhai Dajibhai etc. vs. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar & Anr. [(1965) 2 SCR 328], Amrit Bhikaji Kale & Ors. vs. Kashinath Janardhan Trade & Anr. [(1983) 3 SCC 437] and Balchandra Anantrao Rakvi & Ors. vs. Ramchandra Tukaram (D) by LRs & Anr. [(2001) 8 SCC 616]. In the case of Balchandra Anantrao Rakvi & Ors. (supra), the scheme of the Act was examined and it was stated:-
the scheme of the Act gives effect to the policy "land for the tiller" by clothing all the tenants with the right of ownership of the lands cultivated by them personally. A twofold strategy is adopted in the Act- first, by making every tenant a deemed purchaser of the land personally cultivated by him under Section 32 of the Act and secondly, by conferring on the tenant, in specified cases, the right to purchase the land from the landlord, under Section 32 of the Act, held by him under personal cultivation .
3. The case of the landlord before the authorities was that on "Tillers Day" i.e. on 1st April 1957, he was minor and, therefore, in his case the "Tillers Day" gets postponed till the expiry of period of one year from the date he attained majority. Before the authorities under the Act, he had proved his date of birth from School Leaving Certificate to be 18.2.1954 and, therefore, he became major on 18.2.1972. The landlord s case is that during his minority the original respondent-tenant (now deceased and represented by his Legal Representatives) had defaulted in payment of agreed rent consecutively for more than three agricultural years. His tenancy, therefore, was terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 read with Section 14 of the Act by notice dated 17.1.1961. After termination of the tenancy, the landlord, through his natural guardian mother, instituted proceedings under Section 29(2) of the Act in the Court of Tenancy Aval Karkun, Taluka Karvir, (registered as Tenancy Case No. 15 of 1969) and obtained an order dated 31.12.1969 in his favour directing the tenant to handover possession of the agricultural lands involved being Revenue Survey Nos. 60 & 61 (now Block No. 131) in Village Arale. It is submitted that in the order passed in proceedings for obtaining possession of the land, it was held that as the lands were given for sugarcane cultivation, in accordance with provisions of Section 43A, the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act conferring status of `deemed purchaser on the tenant on the "Tillers Day" were not applicable.
4. The order dated 31.12.1969 of the Tenancy Aval Karkun, Taluka Karvir, allowing application of the landlord for grant of possession on the basis of termination of tenancy were challenged by the tenant in appeal which was allowed. The landlord then preferred a revision petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which was allowed by order dated 13.8.1973. The Tribunal held in favour of the landlord that the lands involved having been given for sugarcane cultivation, the provisions of Section 32 conferring status of deemed purchaser were not attracted. It was also held that as the landlord was a minor and during minority through his guardian had terminated the tenancy and obtained possession of the lands, the tenant did not become deemed purchaser under Section 32 of the Ac
