SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(SC) 291

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., AND G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, A.N. RAY AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
Sriram Narayan Medhi, Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. 254 of 1968, D/-4-5-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde Sr. Advocate, (M/s. V. M. Limaye and S. S. Shukla, Advocates, with him), for Petitioner; M/s. V. S. Desai and M. C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with them), for Respondent.

Advocates:
N.C.BHANDARE, S.P.NAIR, S.S.SHUKLA, V.M.LIMAYA, V.M.TARKUNDE, V.S.DESAI

Headnote:

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964 – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 – Result of amendment – Relationship between the landlord and tenants of agricultural lands – To regulate and impose restrictions on transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtenant thereto belonging to or occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers and artisans in the Province of Bombay and to make provision for certain other purposes – Incapability of paying rent – Extension of period for payment of arrears – Condonation of default – No right to eviction – Challenged – Held, petitioners have three kinds of tenants permanent tenants, protected tenants, and ordinary tenants – Petitioners ceased to be tenure holders in respect of all tenants other than permanent tenants and became entitled only to the purchase price under Section 32-H. If any tenant claimed on that date that he was a permanent tenant, he had to establish his claim in accordance with Section 83 of the Revenue Code. Such a claim could be contested by the tenure-holder whenever made by the tenant. But by the impugned Act 1958, all this was changed, and unless the tenture holder made an application within six months of the commencement of the impugned Act, 1958, he was not in a position to say that a particular tenant who was in possession of tenure-land for continuous period aggregating twelve years on and before August 15, 1950, was not a permanent tenant. We are unable to hold that the six months limit imposed by Section 5 of the impugned Act, 1958, is in the circumstances, a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19 (5) of the Constitution – Petition dismsised

Judgment

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.: - The petitioner challenges the vires of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Maharashtra Act XXXI of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act ). The parent Act is the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (Bombay Act XLVII of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Parent Act ). In 1956 the State Legislature amended the parent Act by Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act 1956 (Bombay Act XIII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act ) which came into force on 1st August, 56.

2. The State of Bombay undertook legislation in furtherance of its policy of social welfare and to give effect to agrarian reform. The parent Act was passed by the Bombay State Legislature in order to amend the law which governed the relationship between the landlord and tenants of agricultural lands, the object sought to be achieved being as indicated in its preamble that "on account of the neglect of a landholder or disputes between the landlord and his tenants, the cultivation of his estate has as a result suffered or for the purposes of improving the economic and social conditions of peasant or ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agriculture, it is expedient to assume management of estates held by the landholders and to regulate and impose restrictions on transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtenant thereto belonging to or occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers and artisans in the Province of Bombay and to make provision for certain other purposes."

3. By the Constitution First Amendment Act 1951 the parent Act was included in the Ninth Schedule and came within the purview of Article 31-B of the Constitution. In 1956 the State Legislature in order to implement the directive principles of the State Policy set out in Arts. 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India by seeking to promote the welfare of the tenants, the landless peasants and labourers to enable them to acquire land and with a view to bring about equitable distribution of ownership of land, passed the amendment Act which received the assent of the President on March 16, 1956. This Act made further changes in the relationship of landlord and tenants which were more drastic. The main effect of the amendments of Sections 32 to 32-H was that on the 1st April 57 (hereinafter referred to as the tiller s day) every tenant was, subject to the other provisions deemed to have purchased from his landlord free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon, on the said day the land held by him as a tenant subject to certain conditions (vide Section 32). The tenant under Section 32-A was deemed to have purchased the land up to the ceiling area. It was further provided by Section 32-B that if a tenant held the land partly as owner and partly as tenant, but the area of the land held by him as owner is equal to or exceeds the ceiling area he shall not be deemed to have purchased the land held by him as a tenant under Section 32.

4. Section 32-E provided that the balance of any land after the purchase by the tenant under Section 32 shall be disposed of in the manner laid down in Sec. 15 as if it were land surrendered by the tenant. Section 32-F further provided that in the case of disabled landholders namely minors, widows or persons subject to any mental or physical disability or where the tenants are equally disabled as aforesaid or where they are members of the Armed Forces, the tiller s day was postponed by one year after the cessation of disability.

5. As a result of the Amendment Act, on the 1st of April, 1957 the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end, the landholder ceased to be a tenure holder and the title thereto was vested in the tenants defeasible only on certain specified contingencies. The relationship of landholder and tenant was thus transformed into a relationship of a creditor and debtor, the erstwhile landlord being entitled
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top