Salubai Ramchandra and Ors vs Chandu Saju

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1965 Supreme(Bom) 49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AT NAGPUR)
N.L.Abhyankar, J.
Appellants: Salubai Ramchandra and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Chandu Saju and Ors.
Special Civil Appln. Nos. 440 of 1962, 92, 255, 256, 257, 302, 309, 358, 369, 384, 407, 411, 475, 476 490, 511, 544, 555, 556, 557, 562, 587, 588, 600 of 1964 and 50 and 75 of 1965
Decided On: 24.03.1965
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.V. Natu, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 92, 255, 256, 257, 302 and 511 of 1964, B.A. Udhoji, Adv. Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 440 of 1962, 475 and 562 of 1964 and 50 of 1965, S.N. Kherdekar, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 309 and 358 of 1964, R.N. Deshpande, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 369 and 588 of 1964, Y.V. Yakatdar, G.B. Gandhe, D.R. Meghe and B.A. Udhoji, Advs.J.N. Chandurkar, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln Nos. 476 and 544 of 1964, G.K. Vinchure and G.B. Gandhe, Advs.M.S. Deshpande, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 554, 556 and 557 of 1964, V.R. Manohar, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 587 of 1964 and 75 of 1965 and S.N. Kherdekar, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: C.S. Dharmandhikari, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 92, 255, 309, 358 and 384 of 1964, G.R. Mudholkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader in Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 440 of 1962, 92, 255, 256, 257, 302, 309, 358, 369, 384, 407, 411, 475, 476, 490, 511, 542, 544, 554, 556, 557, 562, 587, 588 and 600 of 1964 and 50 and 75 of 1965, N.S. Munshi, Adv., M.N. Chandurkar, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. No. 257 of 1964, A.G. Nagomothe, J.N. Chandurkar and R.N. Deshpande, Advs. M.M. Qazi, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 475 and 554 of 1964, S.V. Natu, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. No. 490 of 1964, Y.V. Jakatdar, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. No. 562 and 600 of 1964, M.S. Deshpande, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 587 of 1964 and 75 of 1965, B.R. Mandlekar, Adv. in Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 588 of 1964 and 50 of 1965

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The case involves a batch of 28 special civil applications raising common legal questions, particularly regarding the interpretation of constitutional provisions (!) .
The central legal issue is whether a landholder who initiates proceedings to terminate a lease under a specific land tenancy law is entitled to relief if the tenant was a protected lessee whose rights existed before the land was acquired through partition after a certain date (!) (!) .
The landholder's claim to possession is based on the division of joint family land resulting in the allotment of land to his share, which purportedly grants him the right to terminate the lease and take possession (!) (!) .
The applicable law in the region is the relevant tenancy act, which was enacted in 1958, and its provisions, especially Section 38, govern the rights and restrictions related to tenancy and land transfer (!) (!) .
Section 38 of the act provides conditions under which a landlord can terminate a tenancy, including requirements for notice, bona fide need for personal cultivation, and restrictions based on the land's record status as of a specific date (!) - (!) .
The amendments to Section 38, particularly in 1963, introduced provisions concerning land acquisition through transfer or partition after a specific date, which are challenged on constitutional grounds (!) - (!) .
The constitutional challenge argues that the amendments violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 31 by discriminating against joint family members and restricting their rights without compensation (!) - (!) .
The argument also contends that a member of a joint family does not "acquire" land as a result of partition but merely declares an intention to separate, and thus, the law's classification as an estate or land held for agricultural purposes is questionable (!) - (!) .
The legislation's validity is further supported by the view that the law pertains to "estates" or land rights as understood in existing land tenure laws, which have been recognized as within the legislative competence and constitutional framework (!) - (!) .
The interpretation of whether land held by occupants in the region qualifies as an "estate" under the law is based on the existing land tenure laws, which define and recognize such land as estate or its local equivalent (!) - (!) .
The amendments made to the law, including the definition of "estate" to include land held or let for agricultural purposes, are deemed consistent with the constitutional provisions, especially after the retrospective effect of the amendments was recognized (!) - (!) .
The legislative acts and amendments are considered to have been validly enacted, as they fall within the scope of laws relating to land tenure and estate, and do not violate fundamental rights when properly interpreted (!) - (!) .
The legal arguments emphasize that the rights of occupants or landholders in the region are consistent with the legal understanding of estates and land tenure laws, and the legislation does not infringe constitutional rights as claimed (!) - (!) .
The legislative process, including the publication and assent procedures, supports the conclusion that the laws were validly enacted and are within the legislative competence of the state (!) - (!) .
Overall, the legislation's provisions concerning land rights, tenancy, and land transfer are upheld as constitutionally valid, and the challenge based on constitutional rights is rejected based on the interpretation of the law and existing land tenure systems (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this document.

judgment

Abhyankar, J.

(1) This order will dispose of a batch of 28 Special civil Application which raise a common question of law and also interpretation of the constitution. These special civil applications are:-

(2) The common question of law that arises in all these case is whether a landholder who has commenced proceedings for terminating the lease of a tenant under section 38 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands [Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area] Act, 1958, and for possession of that land is not entitled to any relief in respect of the land held by this tenant if the said tenant of was a protected lessee whose rights as such protected lessee , had come into existences of before the landholder acquired such and by the partition., and such Acquistion of land by partition took place after the first day of the August 1953.

(3) It is common ground in all these cases that the landholder who claims possession of the land claims this rights on the ground that as a result of partition of in the joint family particular land had been allotted to his share and therefore he or she was entitled to terminate the lease of the tenant and get possession according to law.

(4) Hereafter, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands [Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area] Act, 1958, i.e. Bombay Act NO. XCIX of 1958 will be referred to as the Vidarbha act because it in operative in the eights districts of Vibarbha Region of the State of Maharashtra.

(5) The Legislative Assembly of the reorganized state of Bombay passed by the Vibardha act which come into force in this regain on 30th December 1958. The Act was published in the Extraordinary Gazette of the Bombay Government Gazette on December 26, 1958. It is reproduced in the regulate issue of the Bombay Government Gazette of January 1, 1959, in Part IV, page 1 to 69. On page 1 of the Gazette, the text of the act, it preceded by the following note under the signature of the Secretary to the Government of Bombay Legal Department.

""The Following Act of the Bombay Legislature, having been assented to by the President on the 25th December 1958, is hereby published for general information.""

(6) The Preamble to the Act is divided into two paragraphs and it is to the following effect:

""WHEREAS it is expedient to amend to the law which Governs of the relations, of landlords and tenants of agricultural land and suits used for allied pursuits in the Vidarbha Region and the Kutch area of the state of the Bombay with the view of bringing the status of and rights to tenants as far as possible in line with those prevailing in certain other parts of the state:

AND WHEREAS it is expedient in the interest of the general public to regulate and impose restriction of on the transfer of agricultural lands and to dwelling houses and lands appurtenant thereto the sites used for allied pursuits belonging to or occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labour, artisans and persons carrying on allied pursuits in the Vidarbha Region and the Kutck area of the state of the Bombay and to provide for the assumption of management of agricultural lands insertion circumstances and to make provisions of each certain matter hereinafter appearing: it is hereby enacted in the Ninth Years of the Republic of India as follows:"".

(7) Section 2 of the Act gives definitions of and sub - section (34) of section 2 states, the words and expressions used in this , act but not defined shall have the meanings assigned to them in the code and the Transfer of property act, 1882, as the case may be. But there is an overriding caution in beginning of the definition section, that this should be so unless the context requires otherwise. The code referred to in sub -section [34] means under section 2 [7], the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954.

(8) Section 38, the Interpretation of which is in issue in these cases originally stood in is various sub - section as follows:

""38 [1], Notwithstanding anythings contained in section 9 or 19 but subject of the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document