SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 227

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Baban Balaji More (Dead) by LRs. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Babaji Hari Shelar (Dead) by LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8356 of 2017
Decided On : 14-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR Mr. B. H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Ms. Apurva, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Avinish Kumar Saurabh, Adv. Mr. Ajit Pravin Wagh, Adv. Mr. Gyan Prakash, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Anand, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. M/S. S.M. Jadhav And Company, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Pakhiddey, Adv. Mr. Srirang Verma, Adv. Mr. Manav Gill, Adv. Mr. Byron Sequeira, Adv. Mr. Pramod Gore, Adv. Mr. Nitin S.tambwekar, Adv. Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. Eeshan D. Khaire, Adv. Ms. Niharika Tanneru, Adv. Ms. Kavya S. Lokande, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Mahipal Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chawla, Adv. Mr. Abhijit S. Kamble, Adv. Ms. Sandhya Panwar, Adv. Ms. Madhvi Sawant, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR

Headnote:

Vintage Legislations - Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 - The judgment entails correlation of three vintage legislations, requiring interpretation and harmonious construction. The court discussed the provisions of the 1874 Act, Tenancy Act, and Abolition Act, highlighting the rights and liabilities of Watandars, the abolition of Patel Watans, and the application of tenancy laws to Watan lands. The court emphasized the limited exemption of Watan lands from the Tenancy Act and the impact of the Abolition Act on the rights of tenants and Watandars.

Fact of the Case:

The legal heirs of a Watandar filed an application under Section 5 of the 1874 Act to recover possession of Watan lands from tenants. The tenants challenged the orders through appeals and revisions, leading to conflicting decisions. The Abolition Act came into effect, abolishing Patel Watans and resuming Watan lands. The tenants' revision was allowed, restoring the lands to them. The Watandars filed a writ petition, challenging the restoration of lands to the tenants.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Watandars could not proceed against the tenants under the 1874 Act after the Tenancy Act became applicable to the Watan lands. The court found that the tenancy was subsisting on Tillers' Day and the tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase under the Tenancy Act after the exemption under Section 88CA ceased to exist. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the tenants' rights and the revisional order restoring the lands to them.

Issues: Interpretation and harmonious construction of vintage legislations, rights and liabilities of Watandars, applicability of tenancy laws to Watan lands, validity of orders under the 1874 Act, and the impact of the Abolition Act on tenancy rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited exemption of Watan lands from the Tenancy Act and the impact of the Abolition Act on the rights of tenants and Watandars. The court held that the Watandars could not proceed against the tenants under the 1874 Act after the Tenancy Act became applicable to the Watan lands. The court found that the tenancy was subsisting on Tillers' Day and the tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase under the Tenancy Act after the exemption under Section 88CA ceased to exist.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the tenants' rights and the revisional order restoring the lands to them. The court held that the Watandars could not proceed against the tenants under the 1874 Act after the Tenancy Act became applicable to the Watan lands. The court found that the tenancy was subsisting on Tillers' Day and the tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase under the Tenancy Act after the exemption under Section 88CA ceased to exist.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal entails correlation of three vintage legislations, requiring not only their interpretation but also their harmonious construction. The oldest of the three statutes is the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (for brevity ‘the 1874 Act’). The next is the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for brevity ‘the Tenancy Act’) and the third is the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 (for brevity ‘the Abolition Act’).

2. The 1874 Act was enacted to declare and amend the law relating to Watans, i.e. hereditary offices. Balaji Chimnaji More, the predecessor of the present appellants, held a Patel Watan since prior to August, 1898. He was assigned Watan property, viz. a 50% share in an extent of 20 acres of land in Survey No. 386 and a 50% share in an extent of 16 acres in Survey No. 410 of Village Chikhali. Babaji Hari Shelar and Ganapati Dhondiba Tapkir (or Tapkire), the predecessors of the respondents herein, were cultivating this Watan property as tenants since 1955-56 or thereabouts.

3. While so, Balaji Chimnaji More died sometime in February/March, 1958. Thereupon, his legal heirs, namely, Baban Balaji More, Rama Balaji More and Jagannath Balaji More, filed an application on 14.06.1958 under Section 5 of the 1874 Act. As per this provision, a Watandar was not competent to mortgage, charge, alienate or lease, for a period beyond the term of his natural life, any Watan or any part thereof or any interest therein to or for the benefit of any person who was not a Watandar of the same Watan, without the sanction of the State Government or the Commissioner, as the case may be. By order dated 18.04.1961, the Assistant Collector, I/C, Haveli Taluka, Poona, held that the tenancy created by the father of the applicants could not extend beyond his lifetime and the applicants would, therefore, have the right to recover possession of the said lands after the death of their father. He, accordingly, allowed their application and ordered that possession of the lands falling to their share should be handed over to them under Sections 11 and 11A of the 1874 Act.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants, viz. Babaji Hari Shelar and the legal heirs of late Ganapati Dhondiba Tapkir, namely, Laxman Ganapati Tapkir, Rama Ganapati Tapkir, Damu Ganapati Tapkir and Babu Ganapati Tapkir, filed Watan Appeal No. 6 of 1961 before the Additional Collector, Poona, under Section 77 of the 1874 Act. However, the said appeal was dismissed, vide order dated 27.03.1962.

5. Thereupon, the tenants carried the matter to the Additional Commissioner, Poona Division, Poona, on 14.04.1962. Order dated 12.06.1962 was passed by the Additional Commissioner, treating the proceeding as an appeal instituted against the order dated 27.03.1962 passed in Watan Appeal No. 6 of 1961. Thereby, the Additional Commissioner rejected the appeal. The appellants would argue that this proceeding cannot be treated as an appeal, inasmuch as the statutory scheme allowed only one appeal under Section 77 of the 1874 Act, and they would contend that this proceeding should be construed to be a revision filed under Section 79 thereof, with necessary consequences. This aspect will be dealt with hereinafter.

6. In any event, during the pendency of this proceeding, the possession of the lands in question was handed over on 22.04.1962 to the legal heirs of the deceased Watandar, in terms of the order dated 18.04.1961 passed by the Assistant Collector, I/C, Haveli Taluka, Poona.

7. At this stage, the Abolition Act was promulgated and it came into effect from 01.01.1963. As per Section 3 thereof, all Patel Watans stood abolished from the appointed date, i.e. 01.01.1963. In consequence, all incidents appertaining to the said Watans, including the right to hold office and Watan property, stood extinguished. Further, Section 3(c) provided that, subject to the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 9, all Watan lands stood resumed and were subjec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top