Back
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1987 (arising out of Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 7819 of 1984), D/- 8-1-1987.
Sakharam Shripati Jadhav (deceased by L. R.s) and others, Appellants
Versus
Chandrakant Laxman Agnihotri and others, Respondents.
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 32G, 4B, 8, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 10A, 14, 16, 17A, 17B, 18, 27, 31 to 31D ,32 to 32R 33A, 33B, 33C, 43, 63, 63A, 64 and 65, 43A(1), 43A, 43B, 88C ,32G, 43A(1)(b), 32 to 32R – Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 227 – Sugarcane Land - Determination Of Rent - Respondents made an application under Act for determination of reasonable rent on basis that lands were leased for growing sugarcane - Trial court rejected application in respect of tenancy of Aval Karkoon on ground that lands had been leased not for growing sugarcane alone, but for different types of crops - Special Land Acquisition Officer, in Tenancy Appeal allowed tenancy of Aval Karkoon and directed determination of rent on basis that lands were leased for growing sugarcane - Order was confirmed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in appeal filed by appellants – Whether lease was taken for chillies, tobacco, sugarcane, groundnuts, etc. or was only for cultivation of sugarcane alone - Whether in document sugar-cane, cotton and tobacco as crops were mentioned or not - Whether lease was for sugar-cane or also for other court below had actually gone for site purposes - Was it composite purpose lease or single purpose lease - Whether there was a lease; and whether lease was for cultivation of sugar-cane or growing of fruits or flowers - Held, It is not necessary that purpose of lease must be specifically mentioned either in instrument of lease or that lease must be for cultivation of sugar-cane etc., in entire field - It would be for courts to reach a conclusion on evidence available to it whether lease was for cultivation of any particular crop or not - Nothing would turn on whether agreement was to grow that crop in entire field or not - In court opinion, having regard to preamble to Act and primary purpose of Act, it would be necessary to remand matter back to High Court for remanding it back to appropriate officer to determine whether there was any area which was leased exclusively for sugar-cane crop - If it is held on such enquiry that entirety of area was for sugar-cane crop, then order of Tribunal made in this case cannot be interfered with - If, on other hand, there are areas which were leased out separately and independently of leasing out for sugarcane and demarcated separately, then in respect of the same, no exemption can be given in derogation of the rights of the agricultural tenants in those leased areas and appellant would be entitled to succeed - In a lease for composite purposes, if there was any area where sugar-cane was only cultivated, that area would be exempt from ambit of provisions of Act and would be exempted - If, however, along with cultivation of sugar-cane, other crops were cultivated in area, such an area would not be entitled to exemption - Court therefore remand case with directions that authorities below should find position in light of aforesaid - It may be observed thatthe Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was enacted with a high purpose of transferring land tilled to tillers of soil with exception of lands which were leased out for growing sugar-cane because of need for protection of industry of sugar-cane and development of economy – Appeal Disposed of.
No legal document was provided in your query (the {content} placeholder appears to be empty). Please share the actual document content within
Judgment
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- Special leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties on the appeal.
2. This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 9th November, 1983. It raises a short and an interesting point. Shripati Balla Jadhav, father of the appellants had executed a lease deed with regard to the suit land in favour of the landlord and taken the said land on lease. The said lease was for the purpose of cultivation of chillies, tobacco, sugarcane, groundnuts, etc. That is the version of the petitioners/appellants.
3. The question is, whether the lease was taken for the aforesaid purposes or was only for the cultivation of sugarcane alone. In deciding that question the terms of the lease will have to be borne in mind. Suo motu proceedings for fixing the price under S. 32G, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 being Act No. LXVII of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) was taken on the assumption that the tenant had become statutory purchaser by virtue of S. 32 of the said Act. The proceedings were dropped as some of the respondents were then minors. An order was made by Deputy Collector in appeal from the order of the trial court in proceedings under S. 32G of the said Act remanding the case to the trial Court on 31st March, 1973. Thereafter on 17th July, 1975, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order of remand made by Dy. Collector, in revision filed by the respondents herein. The High Court thereafter rejected the writ petition of the landlord against the order of ,the Tribunal and as such the proceedings under S. 32G, according to the appellants herein, are still pending.
4. On 15th June, 1974, the respondents made an application under the Act for determination of reasonable rent on the basis that the lands were leased for growing sugarcane. The trial court on 11 th February, 1975 rejected the application in respect of the tenancy of Aval Karkoon on the ground that the lands had been leased not for growing sugarcane alone, but for different types of crops. On or about 31st May, 1977, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kolahpur, in Tenancy Appeal No. 302 of 1975 allowed the tenancy of Aval Karkoon and directed the determination of the rent on the basis that the lands were leased for growing sugarcane. The said order was confirmed on 30th November, 1978 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolahpur, in appeal filed by the appellants. There was a writ petition thereafter on 9th November, 1983 by the appellants under Art. 227 of the Constitution and the High Court of Bombay rejected the said writ application. The petitioners have come up in special leave to this Court.
5. It may be mentioned before we deal with the judgment under appeal that the said Act was an Act to amend the law relating to tenancy of the agricultural land and to make certain other provisions with regard to those lands. It may be mentioned that the purpose was to make the tillers owners of the land and in respect of mortgages of certain lands giving the tenant the right of re-purchase of the land. It is a social agrarian reform measure to ameliorate the conditions of the tenants. See in this connection the statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act.
6. In the Preamble it is stated that it was necessary to amend the law which governed the relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands; and further whereas on account of the neglect of a landholder or disputes between landlord and tenants, the cultivation of an estate has seriously suffered, or for the purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of peasants or ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agriculture, it was expedient to assume management of estates held by landholders and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtenant thereto or occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers and artisans in the Province of Bombay and
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
