Advocates:
C.B.SINGH, JITENDRA SHARMA, P.H.Parekh, U.R.Lalit

What is the effect of Section 32 and 32-F in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 on the status of a tenant as a deemed purchaser on the tillers day? What are the consequences when a Tribunal or authorities proceed on the erroneous assumption that the recorded owner was a minor under Section 32-F, thereby affecting possession and validity of subsequent orders? What are the rights and remedies of a deemed purchaser (tenant) when subsequent proceedings under Sections 32-G, 32-F, or 14/29 are found to be void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction?

Key Points: - (!) Section 32 creates a deemed purchase by the tenant on the tiller’s day, extinguishing the landlord’s title and transferring ownership to the tenant, subject to Section 32-F if the landlord is a minor or under disability. - (!) The constitutional amendment and related judgments establish that the tenant becomes the owner on the tiller’s day, and the landlord’s title is extinguished without further transfer; possession cannot be rightfully retained by the landlord once deemed purchaser arises. - (!) If the Tribunal proceeds on the incorrect premise that the recorded owner was a minor, its order is a nullity ab initio; such proceedings cannot confer title or restore possession to the landlord. - (!) Statements or admissions by parties in later proceedings cannot validate void orders; void orders under Section 32-F or Section 14 cannot defeat the statutory status of the deemed purchaser. - (!) The High Court and Supreme Court uphold that the deemed purchaser’s rights prevail and subsequent proceedings based on jurisdictional errors are null and void. - (!) Costs and fairness considerations in constitutional notices can lead to directing payment of costs to the respondent where the appellant was unable to engage counsel. - (!) The relationship of landlord and tenant is terminated on the tiller's day; the tenant becomes the owner and interacts with the State, not the landlord, regarding price under Section 32-G. - (!) Section 32-F’s non-obstante clause applies only where the landlord is a minor or disabled; in other cases, the deemed purchase occurs, and postponement of sale is not applicable. - (!) Jurisdictional excess or misapplication by a tribunal does not validate the order; lack of jurisdiction leads to nullity. - (!) Proceedings under Section 84 for recovery of possession proceed in light of the deemed purchaser status; such orders must align with the statutory framework.

What is the effect of Section 32 and 32-F in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 on the status of a tenant as a deemed purchaser on the tillers day?

What are the consequences when a Tribunal or authorities proceed on the erroneous assumption that the recorded owner was a minor under Section 32-F, thereby affecting possession and validity of subsequent orders?

What are the rights and remedies of a deemed purchaser (tenant) when subsequent proceedings under Sections 32-G, 32-F, or 14/29 are found to be void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction?