IMPORTANT POINT
If a person remained a tenant in agricultural land on 1-4-1957, by reason of legal fiction created u/s 32 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, he would be deemed to have purchased the land from his landlord.

Headnote:Bombay Tenancy and Argicultural Lands Act, 1948—Section 32-G and 32-O—Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962—Section 8—If a person remained tenant in agricultural land on 1-4-1957, by reason of legal fiction created u/s 32 of Tenancy Act, he would be deemed to have purchased the land from his landlord—Provision conferred an absolute right to the tenant—Proviso to Section 8 of 1962 Act did not take away the vested right conferred under Tenancy Act—Respondent, a tenant in the land, served notice upon landlord expressing his desire to pay purchase price of land—Tehsildar dropped proceedings holding that tenancy commenced on date of re-grant, tenant ought to have given notice within one year from date thereof as contemplated u/s 32-O of the Act—Appellate Authority found Section 32-O was not attracted and tenant was entitled to purchase the land—High Court upheld the view in writ—Appeal—Right of respondent to purchase the land became a vested right, proviso appended to Section 8 of 1962 Act could not be read to mean that such right stood divested—Finding of High Court were liable to be confirmed.
       Held : First day of April, 1957 was declared to be the ‘tillers day’. If a person remained a tenant on the said date, by reason of the legal fiction created under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, he would be deemed to have purchased the land from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day. Section 32-G thereof, on the other hand, casts an obligation on the Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to publish or cause to be published a public notice in the prescribed form calling upon the tenants who under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act are deemed to have purchased the land. Section 32-O contains a non-obstante clause providing notwithstanding any agreement or usage to the contrary, a tenant cultivating personally would be entitled within one year from the commencement of such tenancy to purchase from the landlord the land held by him or such part thereof as will raise the holding of the tenant to the ceiling area.(Para 18)
       As in 1957 the right of the respondent to purchase the land became a vested right, proviso appended to Section 8 of the 1962 Act could not be read to mean that such right stood divested. Proviso appended to Section 8 refers to the application of the provisions of the relevant tenancy laws as the same does not abrogate a vested right. Proviso, it is well known, has a limited role to play. It may create an exception. It ordinarily does not create a right or takes away a vested or accrued right. Proviso to Section 8 of the 1962 Act, in our considered opinion, does not take away a vested right conferred under the Tenancy Act.(Para 22)
       By construing both the Acts harmoniously, the High Court, in our opinion, did not make a new law. It merely interpreted the same in the light of the object of the Act. The proviso appended to Section 8 of the 1962 Act merely postponed the operation of the statute. Fixation of price of the land in question subject to exercise of option by the tenant was to that extent beneficial to the landlord; but the same would not mean that legal fiction created under 32 of the Tenancy Act would stand effaced.(Para 23)
       Proviso to Section 8 of 1962 Act, therefore, should be interpreted accordingly. It did not create any right in favour of the landlord nor did it take away the right of the tenant. It would not be correct to contend that only because Section 31 of the Tenancy Act gives an option to the landlord to terminate the tenancy and take the possession of the land, Section 32-O thereof had been given a retrospective effect. The legal fiction created under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act cannot be given a limited meaning. A legal fiction, as is well known, must be given its full effect.(Para 25)
       For the reasons aforementioned, we, with respect, agree with the findings of the High Court. However, keeping in view our findings aforementioned, it is not necessary to consider the implication of the provisions of the 1874 Act. The Appeal, therefore, is devoid of any merits, which is dismissed accordingly.(Para 31)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. The ancestors of Appellant were seized and possessed of watan lands. They were known as Watandars and the land was classified in the record of rights as ‘Patil Inam Land of Class VIB’. The ancestor of Respondent was inducted as a tenant in Survey Nos. 208/1 and 208/2 of Village Yaval in the District of Jalgaon, State of Maharashtra.

3. The erstwhile State of Bombay enacted the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, “the Tenancy Act”). The Tenancy Act was enacted to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to make certain other provisions in regard thereto. By reason of the said provisions having regard to the economic and social conditions of peasants and for ensuring full and efficient use of land for agriculture, it was considered 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 belonging to or occupied by agriculturalists, agricultural labourers and artisans in the Province of Bombay and to make provisions for certain other purposes thereinafter appearing.

4. The Tenancy Act came into force with effect from 02.04.1940. “Landholder” has been defined in Section 2(9) thereof to mean :

“Landholder” means a zamindar, jahagirdar, saranjamdar, inamdar, talukdar, malik or a khot or any person not hereinbefore specified who is a holder of land or who is interested in land, and whom the State Government has declared on account of the extent and value of the land or his interests therein to be landholder for the purposes of this Act;”

5. “Ariculturist” has been defined in Section 2(2) of the Tenancy Act to mean a person who cultivates land personally. The words “to cultivate” with grammatical variation and cognate expressions means to till or husband the land for the purpose of raising or improving agricultural produce, whether by manual or labour or by means of cattle or machinery, or to carry on any agricultural operation thereon; and the expression “uncultivated” is to be construed correspondingly. The expression “to cultivate personally” is further defined in Section 2(6) of the Tenancy Act to mean:

“2(6) “to cultivate personally” means to cultivate land on one’s own account-

(i)by one’s own labour, or

(ii)by the labour of any member of one’s family or

(iii)under the personal supervision of oneself or any member of one’s family, by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share, being land, the entire area of which-

(a)is situate within the limits of a single village, or

(b)is so situated that no piece of land is separated from another by a distance of more than five miles, or

(c)forms one compact block :

Provided that the restrictions contained in clause (a) (b) and (c) shall not apply to any land,–

(i)which does not exceed twice the ceiling area,

(ii)upto twice the ceiling area, if such land exceeds twice the ceiling area.

Explanation I.—A widow or a minor, or a person who is subject to physical or mental disability or a serving member of the armed forces shall be deemed to cultivate the land personally if such land is cultivated by servants, or by hired labour, or through tenants.

Explanation II—In the case of a joint family, the land shall be deemed to have been cultivated personally if it is cultivated by any member of such family.”

6. Section 31 of the Tenancy Act empowers a landlord to terminate a tenancy after giving notice and making an application for possession as provided for in sub-section (2) thereof, if the same is required by him, inter alia, for cultivating purposes. However, such option could be exercised in the manner required under sub-section (2), in terms whereof notices were to be served by 31.12.1956.

7. Section 32 of the Tenancy Act provides for an option to the tenants to purchase the land in their possession, which reads as under :

“32. Tenants deemed to have purch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 929

IMPORTANT POINTIf a person remained a tenant in agricultural land on 1-4-1957, by reason of legal fiction created u/s 32 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, he would be deemed to have purchased the land from his landlord.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
If a person remained a tenant in agricultural land on 1-4-1957, by reason of legal fiction created u/s 32 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, he would be deemed to have purchased the land from his landlord.