The tillers day for determining statutory ownership under the Tenancy Act is not postponed for sanadi inam land, and the provisions of the Tenancy Act apply to such land.

Headnote:
TENANCY RIGHTS - SANADI INAM LAND - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - BOMBAY MERGED TERRITORIES MISCELLANEOUS ALIENATIONS ABOLITION ACT, 1955 - TILLERS DAY - STATUTORY OWNERSHIP - SECTION 32-G - SECTION 88(1)(A) - SECTION 28 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the holder of sanadi inam land, challenged the determination of purchase price for the statutory ownership of the land by the tenant, Gopala, under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act). The petitioner argued that the tillers day, the date on which statutory ownership vested in the tenant, should be postponed to the date of regrant of the land to him after the abolition of inam under the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 (Abolition Act).
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the tillers day, as defined in section 32 of the Tenancy Act, was 1st April, 1957, and it was not postponed merely because the land was sanadi inam land. The court found that the provisions of the Tenancy Act applied to sanadi inam land, and the rights of the tenant were not affected by the abolition of inam and the subsequent regrant of the land to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the tillers day for determining statutory ownership under the Tenancy Act is postponed for sanadi inam land until the date of regrant after the abolition of inam. 2. Whether the provisions of the Tenancy Act apply to sanadi inam land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted section 88(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act, which excludes certain lands from the application of the Act, and held that sanadi inam land was not included in the exclusion. The court also relied on the Explanation to section 88, which clarified that only certain types of inam land were considered as belonging to the Government and excluded from the Act. 2. The court further analyzed section 32-G(6) of the Tenancy Act, which specifically addressed the rights of tenants in regranted land, and held that it created a statutory right of ownership in respect of sanadi inam land regranted to the holder. The court also referred to section 28 of the Abolition Act, which preserved the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants in respect of alienated land, including sanadi inam land.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the tillers day was not postponed for sanadi inam land and that the provisions of the Tenancy Act applied to such land. The court remanded the matter to the Lands Tribunal for a fresh enquiry and decision on the statutory ownership rights of the tenant, Sitaram, and his heirs.

JUDGMENT - M.N. CHANDURKAR, J.:---This petition which relates to the tenancy rights of a tenant of sanadi inam land has been referred to the Division Bench because the learned Single Judge had doubted the correctness of the view taken by V.S. Desai, J. in (Shripati Mane v. Shamrao Jagdale)1, 18 Tenancy Law Reporter, page 137. Really speaking the controversy which is raised in this petition is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 475 of 1973 (Pandurang Dnyanoba Lad v. Dada Rama Mehte)2, decided on 24th, February, 1976 reported in 25 Tenancy Law Reporter, page 2. It does not appear that this decision of the Supreme Court was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

2. The petitioner admittedly hold Survey No. 274 (6 acres 35 gunthas) of village Pattan-Kudoli in Hatkanangale taluka of Kolhapur district as sanadi inam land. The field was jointly cultivated by two tenants Sitaram and Gopala, who are now represented by their heirs who are respondents in this petition. Admittedly both the tenants were cultivating the land prior to 1st April, 1957. According to the petitioner, Sitaram had surrendered his rights prior to 1st April, 1957. There is some dispute as to the data on which the tenancy rights were surrendered, but it is not in dispute that the surrender was verified and was found to be voluntary by the Tahsildar by an order dated 7th August, 1958. The petitioner claims to be in possession of half share of the land surrendered by Sitaram. According to the petitioner, proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act") were taken from time to time for determination of purchase price for the purposes of transferring statutory ownership to the tenants, but those proceedings were dropped. In the meantime, the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Abolition Act") had come into force. Under section 4 of the Abolition Act the inam granted to the petitioner came to be abolished and the land was regranted to him under section 7 of the Abolition Act..

3. The original tenant Sitaram then applied for determination of the purchase price under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal by an order dated 3rd January, 1972 held that Sitaram having already given up his tenancy rights, no order under section 32-G could be passed in his favour in respect of the portion of the land of which he was earlier a tenant. The other tenant Gopala was held entitled to purchase the land and by an order dated 3rd January, 1972 the tillers day was held to be 23rd July 1971, i.e., the day on which the regrant was made in favour of the petitioner. The purchase price was also determined.

4. Two appeals ware filed against the order of the Lands Tribunal. One was filed by the petitioner challenging the determination of purchase price in so far as Gopala was concerned and Sitarams heir, the present respondent No. 1, also filed an appeal. Both these appeals came to be decided by a common order. The petitioners appeal came to be dismissed and the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 as the heir of Sitaram came to be allowed and the matter was remanded by the Special Deputy Collector to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for a fresh enquiry and decision in respect of half the land.

5. The petitioner filed a revision application challenging both the adverse orders against him. The revision application was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the tillers day was not postponed merely because the land was inam land. The Tribunal also held that as the surrender application was given after the tillers day, the same could not be held to be a valid surrender. So far as Gopala was concerned, the price was held to have been properly fixed. This order of the Tribunal is new challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

6. Now, when the matter came before the leaned S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1979 Supreme(Bom) 153

The tillers day for determining statutory ownership under the Tenancy Act is not postponed for sanadi inam land, and the provisions of the Tenancy Act apply to such land.

Login now and unlock premium legal research