The provisions of Section 32 - F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act) applied when either a landlord or a tenant or both of them were under disability. Section 32 - F prescribed the manner in which and the time within which a right to purchase under Section 32 had to be exercised by a tenant when a landlord or a tenant or both of them were under disability. Section 32 - F did not create any independent right to purchase land in a tenant apart from that conferred by Section 32.

JUDGMENT - Kantawala, J.

1. These three special civil applications are referred to a Full Bench as they involve a question as to proper construction of the provisions of Section 32 - F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner in each of these applications is either a landlord or a tenant belonging to the category specified in the said Section 32 - F.

2. In Special Civil Application No. 2198 of 1966 proceedings under Section 32 - G of the Act were initiated by the Additional Mahalkari and Agricultural Lands Tribunal No. IV. Kudal, for determining the price payable by the tenant in respect of Survey No. 5, Pot Hissa No. 3, admeasuring 25-1/2 gunthas situate at Village Pat, Mahal Kudal. On the Tillers Day i.e., on April 1, 1957 respondent No. 1 Shrimati Indira Anant Patkar and her two minor sons were the tenants of the land. Landlord Vishnu Shantaram Desai contended before the Tribunal that the tenant was not entitled to purchase the land held by her as she was a widow. The Tribunal took the view that in case of tenants under disability they had to exercise the right of purchase after their disability ceased but law did not forbid them from becoming owners on the tillers day if they did not wish to postpone the purchase in their favour to any future date. The Tribunal accordingly held that the widow was entitled to purchase the land held by her as a tenant on the tillers day. The order of the Tribunal also made a reference to one of the minor sons who had become major before the proceedings were commenced. Such a major son, after attaining majority had not given any intimation expressing his desire to exercise his right to purchase land under S. 32, within one year of his attaining majority. The Tribunal, however, took the view that as proceedings were not initiated till then under Section 32 - G failure to give such intimation by such a son after attaining majority did not debar the widow from exercising her right to purchase. The Tribunal also fixed the price that was payable by the tenant to the landlord and directed it to be paid by two annual instalments. These findings of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal were confirmed in appeal by the District Deputy Collector, Savantwadi and in provision by the President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in its order inter alia observed that the provisions of Section 32 - F related only to a case where a landlord is a disabled person; there was nothing in Section 32 to suggest that a tenant, who is disabled, is prevented from becoming a statutory purchaser either n 1st April 1957, i.e., the tillers day or on the postponed date. Landlord Vishnu has filed Special Civil Application under Art. 227 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of this order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay.

3. In Special Civil Application No. 1916 of 1965 Survey No. 56 admeasuring 18 acres ( and 5 acres 10 gunthas Pot Kharab) situate at Village Kaudane, Taluka Karjat, belonged to Lahanubhai Maruti Gangarade, a widow on the tillers day. She died on April 30, 1959. One Ganu Rama Khore was a tenant of this land on the tillers day. He too died in the year 1960, leaving his two sons, Rangnath and Babu, who cultivated the land as tenants thereafter. Disputes existed as regards the claim as successor - in - title of widow Lahanubhai between Ganpat Saradu Gangarade and one Yeshwant Kondiba. Ultimately, the name of Ganpat Gangarade was entered in the record of rights on October 9, 1961, as a successor - in - title of widow Lahanubhai. On October 14, 1961, Ganpat Gangarade gave a notice to Ranganath and Babu terminating their tenancy on the ground that he required the land for personal cultivation and ultimately made an application through his constituted attorney Namdeo on December 18, 1961, for possession under Section 29 of the Act. In these proceedings, ignoring the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document