JUDGMENT - (1) Two of these petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution and two under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2) The petitioner in the first and second petition is the occupant of Survey No. 204 of the village Sahijpurbogh. It is common ground that he sold this field to one Punjiram Prajapati on 1st April 1957 for Rs. 9,176. This sale has been declared invalid by the the Mamlatdar under section 84C (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Pursant to this declaration the land purported to have been sold by the petitioner to Punjiram Prajapati has been declared by the Mamlatdar to have been forfeited to the Govt. and the price received by the petitioner is also declared to have been forfeited to the Governmen. The Mamlatdars order having been ultimately affirmed by the Prant Officer in appeal and by the Bombay revenue Tribunal in revision, the petitioner seeks to have all those orders quashed under article 227 of the Constitution. By way of precaution the petitioner is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 also and that is why he has made two applications. The petitioner in the other petitions is a purchaser of another field of te petitions is a purchase of another field of the same village from the occupant thereof and the sale in his favour has been held by the Tenancy Aval Karkun to be invalid as being in contravention of section 63 of the Act. This order having been affirmed by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal the petitioner wants it to be quashed under Article 227. By way of precaution he has also filed and application under Article 226.

(3) The petitioners contention is that the provisions of section 84C of the Act are unconstitutional inasmuch as they contravene Article 31 (2) of the Constitutuion. It is said on behalf of the petitioner that what section 84C purports to do is to acquire property without payment of compensation and, therefore, this section is ultra vires the Consitution. We cannot accept the contention that secftion 84C deals with acquisition of property for a public purpose and, therefore, hold that it is not violative of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution.

(4) Now, in so far as this section provides that on a declaration made by the Mamlatdar under sub-section (2) of section 84C to the effect that the sale effected by the occupan of an agricultural land is invalid and consequently the land shall be deemed to vest in the government, the law can be sustained under Article 31 (1) of the Constitution. Under this provision it is open to a Legislature to make a law whereunder a person may be deprived of his property. Such deprivation, of course, may be in the exercise of the police power or may be for th purpose of taxation or penalty. Here, so far as the sale by the occupant of the land is concerned the provisions of section 64 lay down a number of restrictions on him. Sub-section (2) of section 64 says that a ale held in contravention of the provisions of that section wold be invalid. It would, therefore, follow that the Legislature has prohibited the owner of a land from alienatig it except in compliance with certain provisions of law. Then by section 84C it has been provided that where an occupant of a land has effected a sale of his land without emplying with the provisions of law or in contravention of the provisions of law and the sale declared invalid by the Mamlatdar, the land shall be forfeited to the government. Where a sale has been rendered invalid by law, the immediate result would be that the land would revert to the occupant and all tht the purchaser is entitled to is the refund of consideration from his vendor, the occupant of the land No. doubt section 84C as already stated, provides that after a sale is declared to be invali by a Mamlatdar, the land, which is the subject matter of the sale shall be forfeited to the Government but that must happen after its reversion to the occupant. Then, the land having reverted to the occupant because the sale had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document