Back
2008(6) Supreme 703
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Tukaram Maruti Chavan — Appellant(s)
versus
Maruti Narayan Chavan (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 6158 of 2002
Decided on : 15-09-2008
(b) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 32F – Provisions of section 32 are mandatory in nature – Right given to the landlord under section 31 has nothing to do with the right given to the tenant under Section 32 F for purchasing the land – Therefore the appellant was under a legal obligation or statutory duty to give notice of his intention to purchase the land – Even if the proceedings were initiated under Section 32 G by the tenant initially, he cannot claim to be exempted from complying with the mandatory requirement of serving a notice to the landlord. (Para 12)
(1995)5 SCC 243 : (1999)4 SCC 443 ; (2006)7 SCC 200 – Relied upon.
(c) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Sections 31(1) and 31(3) – The required notice u/s 32F is not mandatory only in a case when the widow during her life time, served a notice to the tenant that she requires the land bona fide – Once a notice under section 31 (1) is served the further benefit of section 31 (3) is not available – But, in case when Section 31 has not been availed of by the widow Section 31 (3) would definitely apply. (Paras 14 and 15)
(d) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 32F – Even if the tenant was not sure about which of the two brothers had the title he could have served notice to both or anyone of them – Service of notice on one of the co-owners is necessary as it will be construed as service on all the co-owners. (Para 18)
(1995)4 SCC 540 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. Late Smt. Narmadabai who was a widow, was the original landowner of the disputed land. She died in 1964 leaving behind her two sons Ramchandra and Laxman Bhau Sutar.
2. On 1st of April, 1957, i.e. on the Tiller’s Day, the Appellant was in cultivation of the disputed land. The original tenant named Maruti died subsequently in 1994 during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
3. The original tenant had initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the Act before the Additional Tahsildar, Kavathe Makhanlal, and the case was decided in his favour with the purchase price of the disputed land being fixed.
4. On the matter being remanded twice, the Tahsildar passed an Order holding the 2nd Respondent as the sole owner of the disputed land. The purchase of the disputed land by the Appellant was therefore declared to be ineffective for want of notice under Section 32- F and the disputed land was ordered to be disposed of under Section 32 P of the Act.
5. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court which was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court :
There is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
Tarun Chatterjee, J. —
1. This is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment and Order dated 9th of June, 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition no. 4600 of 1983, whereby the High Court had affirmed the decision of the courts below.
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as emerging from the case made out by the appellant may be summarized as follows:
3. The dispute arose out of the provision of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the land being Gat No 44, measuring 5 Hectares and 24 Acres in village Malangaon, Kavathe, Mahankal Tahsil of Sangli District in the state of Maharashtra (in short “the disputed land”). Late Smt. Narmadabai who was a widow, was the original landowner of the disputed land. She died in 1964 leaving behind her two sons Ramchandra and Laxman Bhau Sutar. On 1st of April, 1957, i.e. on the Tiller’s Day, the Appellant was in cultivation of the disputed land. The original tenant named Maruti died subsequently in 1994 during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The original tenant had initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the Act before the Additional Tahsildar, Kavathe Makhanlal, and the case was decided in his favour with the purchase price of the disputed land being fixed. Thereafter, one of the heirs of the deceased landowner Narmadabai, named Laxman, preferred an appeal to Appellate Authority against the said Order. After the matter was remanded back to the Additional Tehsilder, again an Order affirming the previous position was passed in favour of the tenant under Section 32 G. This time, the other heir of Late Smt. Narmadabai, namely Ramchandra, challenged the said Order before the Sub-Divisional-Officer, Miraj, and he again by his Order dated 31st of March, 1978, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for a detailed enquiry and decision on the following points:
(1) “The clear title of the disputed land of the applicant Ramchandra should be enquired.
(2) The point of giving notice u/s 32-F of the Act to the landlord and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal should be enquired as per the provisions under Section 32-F of the Act.”
4. When the matter came up before the Tahsildar, he passed an Order holding the 2nd Respondent as the sole owner of the disputed land. The purchase of the disputed land by the Appellant was therefore declared to be ineffective for want of notice under Section 32- F and the disputed land was Ordered to be disposed of under Section 32 P of the Act. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court on 28th of December, 1983. The Bombay High Court by its impugned Judgment and Order dated 16th of April, 1999, dismissed the said Writ Petition on the ground that the Respondent (Ramchandra) was the sole owner of the disputed land in pursuance of the letters of administration obtained by him from the Civil Court. It is this decision of the High Court, which is impugned in this appeal in respect of which the Writ Petition was filed.
5. During the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court, Respondent No 2 executed a sale deed of the disputed land and though he was duty bound to inform the Court about this deed, he did not inform the same to the Court.
6. The main issue that was framed by the High Court in deciding the above-mentioned Writ Petition was whether giving of notice under Section 32 F was mandated for the tenant and whether on failure of giving such notice, the tenant had lost the right of purchase and whether the Orders of the Tahsildar, the Appellate Court i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer and the Revisional Court i.e. the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were liable to be interfered with. It was against this background that the High Court had h
SupremeToday
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
