Important point
A tenant who has become ‘deemed purchaser’ under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, may surrender tenancy. Such surrender, however, must be as per the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules.

Headnote:Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948—Section 32—Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956—Rule 9—Deemed Purchaser of land—Surrender of tenancy by a tenant must be as per the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules—Appellant was tenant of two pieces of land since 1929—On 1.4.1957, tenant became ‘deemed purchaser’ of land—Tenant surrendered his tenancy rights in respect of one piece of land—He was not interested in purchase of that land—On basis of statement of landlord and tenant, an order was passed by the Mamlatdar handing over possession of the land in favour of landlord—Appellant tenant initiated proceedings u/s 32-G in 1976 for fixation of purchase price praying that since tenant had become ‘deemed purchaser’ u/s 32 of the Act—Proceedings u/s 32-G of the Act were dropped and purchase was declared ineffective by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal—Whether surrender of tenancy was in accordance with law—(Yes)—Since the tenant was not ready and willing to purchase the land and surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of landlord, the landlord was put in possession of the disputed land.
Held : From the statement of Ganpat recorded on November 15, 1959, of Vitthal recorded on the same day and the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, it was clear that the requisite procedure had been followed. The tenant was told about his rights and the effect and consequences of his unwillingness to purchase the land and surrender of tenancy. Thereafter an order was passed by the authority on November 16, 1959. It is also clear that even in 1962 when the possession was handed over to the landlord, again statement of the tenant was recorded and he reiterated what he had stated in 1959. He had stated that on ‘second thought’ also, he was not willing to purchase the land. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the appellate and revisional authorities were not right in ignoring the order of 1959 and in passing the order directing the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal to fix purchase price. In our judgment, the tenant had already surrendered his tenancy rights and since it was in consonance with law and after following proper procedure, an order was passed by Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, it was legal and lawful. It is also clear that since 1962, the respondent-landlord was in possession of the land. No proceedings were taken by the appellate for more than a decade. It is further clear from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the landlord that in 1983, the appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 222 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed for perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 but it was dismissed. An appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Pune on October 4, 1999. It is thus clear that the action was in consonance with law and the High Court was right in setting aside both the orders passed by the appellate authority and revisional authority. We, therefore, see no substance in the appeal which deserves to be dismissed. (Para 30)

Judgment

C.K. Thakker, J.—This appeal is instituted by the appellant against the judgment and order passed by a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay on August 30, 2000 in Writ Petition No.5844 of 1987. By the said order, the High Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Junnar Sub-Division, Khed (Pune) on September 24,1985 and confirmed by the Maharashra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application as also in Review Petition on September 29, 1986 and October 1, 1987 respectively.

2. To appreciate the controversy in the appeal, the relevant facts may be stated in brief.

The case of the appellant before this Court is that the disputed property consists of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 521/A/4B. Gut No. 2326 situate at Village Chakan, District Pune admeasuring 15 gunthas. The land originally belonged to one Vitthal Babaji Bhaskar. Hari Ganpat Jadhav, ancestor of the appellant was the tenant of that land since 1929. After the death of Hari, his son Ganpat was cultivating the land as tenant. Thereafter the appellant continued to cultivate it. According to the appellant, on the 1st April, 1957, the tenant became ‘deemed purchaser’ of the land under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Admittedly, on that day i.e. April 1, 1957 (Tillers’ day), Ganpat (father of the appellant) was in possession of suit land as tenant. Under Section 32 of the Act, therefore, Ganpat became ‘deemed purchaser’. The Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Khed passed an order on November 16, 1959 under Section 32-P of the Act holding that the tenant had surrendered the land as he was not interested in purchasing it and hence the purchase had become ineffective. The Mamlatdar recorded the statement of the tenant (Ganpat) and of the landlord (Vitthal) and held that the possession of the land should be handed over to the landlord. It is the contention of the appellant that the provisions of the Act had not been complied with and as the tenant became ‘deemed purchaser’, the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal was non est. It was also his case that the possession of the land was never handed over to the landlord.

3. The appellant, therefore, approached the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal on December 10, 1976 praying that since the tenant had become ‘deemed purchaser’ under Section 32 of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 32-G of the Act, the purchase price of the land should be fixed. The proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act, however, were dropped and purchase was declared ineffective by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal as the appellant remained absent on the date of the hearing. The application was accordingly dismissed. Against the said order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khed which was allowed on August 20, 1983, the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh inquiry in accordance with law. The case, therefore, again came up for hearing before the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Khed and the Tribunal by an order dated January 31, 1985, partly allowed the prayer of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the prayer was made by the appellant in respect of two pieces of land as mentioned in the order. According to the Tribunal, however, from the evidence led by the landlord, it was clear that an inquiry in respect of one piece of land had been conducted and purchase had been declared ineffective as the tenant was not interested in purchase of land and the possession of the land had been handed over to the landlord. It was, therefore, not necessary to make inquiry under Section 32-G of the Act for that land. Regarding the other land, the tenant had become ‘deemed purchaser’ and, hence, purchase price

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1381

Important pointA tenant who has become ‘deemed purchaser’ under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, may surrender tenancy. Such surrender, however, must be as per the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules.

Cases Referred (4)

Important point
A tenant who has become ‘deemed purchaser’ under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, may surrender tenancy. Such surrender, however, must be as per the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules.