A tenant becomes a purchaser of the land on the Tillers day (April 1, 1957) under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, and any transfer of the land by the tenant without the Collector's sanction is invalid under section 43 of the Act.

Headnote:
TENANCY - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 43, 84-C, 32 - PURCHASE OF LAND BY TENANT - TRANSFER OF LAND BY TENANT - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:

A tenant, Gopal Krishan Jadhav, became a deemed purchaser of the land on April 1, 1957, under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. He paid only five instalments of the purchase price and transferred the land to respondent No. 5 by a gift deed on November 29, 1965. The original owners challenged the transfer under section 43 read with section 84-C of the Act. The Tahsildar declared the transfer invalid and directed that the land be vested in the State Government and disposed of under section 84-C(4). The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, on appeal, held that the purchase was ineffective as the entire price was not recovered and remanded the matter for fresh disposal under sections 32-K, 32-M, and 32-P of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the provisions of section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act apply to the case and the transfer of the land by the tenant was invalid. The Court interpreted section 43 to mean that a tenant becomes a purchaser of the land on the Tillers day (April 1, 1957) and not when the entire purchase price is paid or a certificate under section 32-M is obtained. The Court further held that the order of remand by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was erroneous as the purchase was not declared ineffective under section 32-G or 32-M of the Act, and the landlords were only entitled to recover the balance of the purchase price.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act apply to the facts of the case. 2. Whether the transfer of the land by the tenant was valid. 3. Whether the order of remand by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act prohibits the transfer of land purchased by a tenant under section 32 without the Collector's sanction. 2. A tenant becomes a purchaser of the land on the Tillers day (April 1, 1957) and not when the entire purchase price is paid or a certificate under section 32-M is obtained. 3. The transfer of the land by the tenant was invalid as it was made without the Collector's sanction. 4. The order of remand by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was erroneous as the purchase was not declared ineffective under section 32-G or 32-M of the Act, and the landlords were only entitled to recover the balance of the purchase price.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and restored the order of the Tahsildar, Kagal, declaring the transfer of the land invalid and directing that the land be vested in the State Government and disposed of under section 84-C(4) of the Act.

JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---A short question involved in this Special Civil Application filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the provisions of section 43 read with section 84-C or section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Tenancy Act") would apply to the facts of the present case.

2. Undisputed facts of this case are that the land R.S. No. 95/1 admeasuring 13 acres 33 gunthas situated at village Kagal, District Kolhapur was owned by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the same was in possession of one Gopal Krishan Jadhav as a tenant. In the proceeding started under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act, Gopal Krishan Jadhav was declared as deemed purchaser and the price of the land was fixed at Rs. 2000/-. It was directed that the said amount should be deposited by the tenant in 20 instalments. It appears that the tenant paid only five instalments and ceased to make any further deposits thereafter.

3. The said tenant Gopal Krishan Jadhav since deceased transferred the land in favour of respondent No. 5 under a registered gift-deed, dated November 29, 1965. It is, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 4-original owners filed Tenancy Case No. 80 of 1968 in the Court of the Tahsildar, Kagal challenging the validity of the said transfer of the land under the gift-deed. The learned Tahsildar, Kagal started inquiry on the basis of the application made by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and on consideration of the evidence on record held that the transfer effected by the deceased tenant Gopal Krishna Jadhav was in contravention of the provisions of section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act and therefore, the said transaction was declared invalid in terms of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The learned Tahsildar by the judgment and order, dated April 29, 1969 declared that the transfer of the suit land by gift-deed was invalid and the suit land should be vested in the State Government. He further directed that the disposal of the suit land should be made in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. From the record of this case, it appears that appeal was filed by the widow of the deceased Gopal Krishna Jadhav, but the said appeal was dismissed. The transferee-respondent No. 5 did not file any appeal. Similarly, the original owners respondent Nos. 1 to 4 also did not file any appeal against the said order. It is, however, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 made a representation to the District Collector, Kolhapur that the land in dispute should be transferred to them as they as agriculturists. By a letter, dated February 14, 1976, the District Collectors office informed respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that their application is disposed of and filed and they expressed their regret that the land cannot be restored to the original owners. The original owners-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 feeling aggrieved by the decision of the District Collector submitted Revision Application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal being No. MRT.KP. 95/76. The said representation made by the original owners was treated as an appeal by the learned Member of the Tribunal without expressing any opinion as to whether the said representation was in the nature of an appeal or otherwise and proceeded with the revision application. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the said revision application inter alia contended that the tenant who was deemed purchaser had not paid the entire purchase price of the land and therefore the sale in favour of the tenant must be declared ineffective and the land must be restored to them under the provisions of section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The landlords contention seems to have been accepted by the learned Member of the Tribunal. It is observed in the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that :

"Now, it is not disputed before me that the proceedings started under section 32-G had bot been finally concluded.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document