Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. SHINGHAL AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.
Navindhcandra Ramanlal, Appellant
Versus
Kalidas Bhudarbhai and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2200 of 1969, D/- 21-2-1979.
Advocates appeared
Mr. I. N. Shroff, Mr. R. P. Kapur and Mr. H. S. Parihar, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. J. G. Shah and Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocates, for Respondents.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Sections 88, 32, 3, 43 – Exemption of Operation – Appeal by special leave arises from a judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application filed by the present respondent No. 1 against the present appellant contending that the land involved in the dispute is not exempt from the operation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Held, Question can be answered shortly by referring to the amended S. 43C and S. 88(1)(b) with its proviso, both of which clearly assert that the exemption granted under S. 88(1)(b) by a notification issued by the Government would ensure for the benefit of the land which was within the municipal corporation area on 1st August, 1956 and in no case the additional area which may be included within the municipal corporation area after 1st August, 1956 would enjoy the exemption granted by the Notification unless a fresh Notification is issued. – Admittedly, since 14th February 1957 no fresh Notification is issued. – Land bearing Survey No. 165 was not within the municipal corporation area either on 14th February, 1957, the day on which exemption was granted, or on 1st August, 1956 when Bombay Act XIII of 1956 was put into operation or on 1st April, 1957, tillers day, when title to land would stand transferred to the tenant by sheer operation of law without anything more. – Therefore, the Notification would not cover the land which was at the date of the issue of the Notification not included in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation area. – Subsequent extension of the area of municipal corporation would not enjoy the benefit of exemption in view of the proviso to S. 88(1)(b) and the opening words of S. 43C, both of which clearly recite that the exemption would apply to the land included in the municipal corporation area on 1st August, 1956, the day on which Bombay Act 18 of 1956 came into force, and not to any subsequently added area to the area of municipal corporation. – Land bearing Survey No. 165 was brought within the municipal corporation area after 1st August, 1956 and, therefore, the Notification would not cover such added or extended area and there would be no exemption under that Notification for the land in the extended area. – If the land bearing Survey No. 165 does not enjoy the benefit of exemption under S. 88(1)(b) and it being agricultural land in respect of which the respondent was tenant on the tillers day, the respondent has, by operation of law, become the owner and is a deemed purchaser. – Agricultural Lands Tribunal would have to proceed with the enquiry to determine the price as required by S. 32-G. – It is not necessary to examine this contention because subsequent to the later decision in Sidram Narsappa Kamble, the Tenancy Act of 1948 was amended by Gujarat Act 36 of 1965 making it abundantly clear that if there is any Notification exempting any area from the operation of the Tenancy Act issued by the appropriate Government under S. 88(1)(b) the exemption would ensure for the benefit of that area included in the municipal corporation as on 1st August 1956 and in the absence of a fresh Notification such exemption would not be available to the extended or area added to the area of municipal corporation and this amendment is made effective notwithstanding any judgment, order or decision of the Court or Tribunal to the contrary. – Presumably, in order to combat the effect of some judgments which purported to lay down that the exemption once granted would apply to any area that may be included in the Corporation area at a date much later to the date of issue of the Notification, the amendment was made. – Accordingly, law having undergone a substantive amendment bearing on the subject, the ratio in the decision of Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari and Sidram Narsappa Kamble which turned upon the construction of S. 88(1)(b) as it stood at the relevant time, would not be of any assistance. – Appeal Dismissed
Judgment
DESAI, J.: - This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 542 of 1964 filed by the present respondent No. 1 against the present appellant contending that the land involved in the dispute is not exempt from the operation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act for short).
2. A brief recital of the facts will put the point of law raised herein in proper perspective. Appellant is the owner of Survey No. 165 measuring 2 acres 21 gunthas situated in Village Acher City Taluka, District Ahmedabad. Respondent is and has been the tenant of this land since before 1946. He became a protected tenant under the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 and his name appeared in the Register of protected tenants maintained under that Act. On the introduction of the Tenancy Act of 1948 the respondent continued to be the protected tenant under it. A very comprehensive amendment was made in the Tenancy Act of 1948 by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Bombay Act XIII of 1956) (1956 Act for short). Section 32 as amended by 1956 Act provided for transfer of ownership of the land from a landlord to the tenant of the land by operation of law. The day was styled as tillers day and Section 32 provided that subject to the other provisions of the section and provisions of the next succeeding section every tenant shall be deemed to have purchased from his landlord free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day, the land held by him as tenant. The land involved in this appeal was one to which the Tenancy Act of 1948 as amended by the Amending Act of 1956 applied and by the operation of law the tenant, the respondent, claimed to be the owner of the land.
3. Section 88 of the Tenancy Act of 1948 as it stood at the relevant time provided for exemption of certain lands from its provisions, one such exemption being in respect of any area which the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, specify as being reserved for urban non-agricultural or industrial development. Armed with this power the Government issued Notification No. TNC/5156/101955-F dated 9th August 1956 whereby amongst others the Government specified the area within the limits of the Municipal Corporations of the cities of Poona and Ahmedabad as being reserved for urban non-agricultural and industrial development. This Notification was superseded by another Notification No. TNC. 5156/169426-M dated 14th Feb. 1957 whereby the Government specified amongst others the areas within the limits of the Municipal Corporations of the Cities of Poona and Ahmedabad as being reserved for the above-mentioned purpose. Neither of the Notifications at the date of issue had any relevance to the land involved in this appeal because it was not situated within the area of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad.
4. Subsequently the Government extended the limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation whereby Acher Village in which Survey No. 165 is situated was included in the area of Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad on and from 30th May, 1959.
5. In January 1960 Agricultural Lands Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area wherein the Survey No. 165 is situated, commenced an enquiry under Section 32G of the Treasury Act of 1948 for determining the purchase price of the land on the footing that under Section 32 respondent/tenant has become the deemed purchaser of it. In the course of this enquiry the appellant-landlord gave an application that the land in respect of which the enquiry is being held is now included within the limits of Municipal Corporation at Ahmedabad and hence in view of Section 88 (1) (b) read with the Notification dated 14th February 1957, it was exempted from the operation of Sections 1 to 87 of the Tenancy Act of 1948 and, therefore, the enquiry should be dropped. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal rejected the application of the appellant-landlord a
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
