Back
1986 Supreme(Bom) 153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.N. Khatri, J.
Mohan Gajanan Deshpande.... Petitioner.
Versus
Dhondiram Hari Chavan others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 461 of 1980, decided on 30-4-1986.
Advocates appeared :
B.P. Apte, for petitioner.
P.L. Naik for D.M. Rane, for respondents Nos. 1 2.
Amendments to section 32-F(1)(a) and the proviso to section 32-F(1-A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, introduced by Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969, are prospective in operation and do not apply to a landlord who had already attained majority before 17-10-1969.
Headnote:
LANDLORD-TENANT - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 32-F(1)(A) AND PROVISO - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY MAHARASHTRA ACT 49 OF 1969 - HELD, AMENDMENTS ARE PROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION AND DO NOT APPLY TO LANDLORD WHO HAD ALREADY ATTAINED MAJORITY BEFORE 17-10-1969.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, which confirmed the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer setting aside the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) declaring the purchase of land by the tenants ineffective. The landlord contended that the amendments to section 32-F(1)(a) and the proviso to section 32-F(1-A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, introduced by Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969, were prospective in operation and did not apply to him as he had attained majority before the amendments came into force.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendments to section 32-F(1)(a) and the proviso to section 32-F(1-A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, were prospective in operation and did not apply to the landlord as he had attained majority before the amendments came into force. The court further held that the landlord was under no obligation to give intimation of his having attained majority to the tenants and the tenants could not press in aid the concession enuring to them under the proviso to section 32-F(1-A).
Issues: Whether the amendments to section 32-F(1)(a) and the proviso to section 32-F(1-A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, introduced by Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969, were retrospective in operation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendments to section 32-F(1)(a) and the proviso to section 32-F(1-A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, were prospective in operation and did not apply to the landlord as he had attained majority before the amendments came into force. The court reasoned that there was nothing in the wording of the amendments to suggest that they were retrospective in operation and that there was no indication in the Amending Act itself to draw such an inference. The court further reasoned that assigning retrospective effect to the amendments would lead to absurd results, such as disturbing closed matters where the landlord had attained majority many years before the amendments came into force.
Final Decision: The court allowed the landlord's petition, restored the order of the ALT declaring the purchase of land by the tenants ineffective, and quashed the orders of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
2. The material facts relied upon by both sides before me and which are not in dispute are these : The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereafter for short, 'the tenants') were holding Survey No. 74, 1 acre 2 gunthas, assessment Rs. 4/-, of village Kale in Kolhapur District as tenants of the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly born on 2nd March, 1950 and became major on 2nd March, 1968. Hereafter the petitioner will be referred to as the 'landlord'. In 1973, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal suo motu started 32-G proceedings. By its order dated 24th December, 1973, it dropped these proceedings for the reasons that the landlord was a minor on the tiller's day (that is to say 1st April, 1957). In 1977 that Tribunal again initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereafter 'the Act'). On 7th February, 1977 the Tribunal made an order to the effect that the purchase of the land in favour of the tenants had become ineffective, in as much as they had not exercised their right of purchase within the time permitted by section 32-F(1-A) of the Act. The tenants carried an appeal to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. By his order dated 31st July, 1978, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Lower Court and remanded the matter back for fresh disposal according to law. The appellate authority was of the view that in the 32-G proceedings of 1973, the tenants had expressed their desire to purchase the land and this should have been treated by the A.L.T. as sufficient compliance of the requirements of section 32-F(1-A). Although it has not cited rulings, the appellate authority purported to have relied upon A.I.R. 1974 Bom. 92 (Rama Joshilkar v. Kirtikumar Desai)1. The landlord challenged the decision in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It confirmed the order in appeal. Now the dispute is before me in these Article 227 proceedings.
3. The core of the reasoning of the M.R.T. is that it was incumbent on the landlord under the latter part of section 32-F(1)(a) of the Act to give an intimation to the tenants of his having attained majority, within one year of that event, so as to enable them to exercise their right of purchase. In its view this amendment was retrospective in operation. Such notice was admittedly not sent by the landlord to the tenants. Eventually there was no obligation on the tenants to give any intimation under section 32-F(1-A) to the landlord or the A.L.T. of their desires to purchase the land.
4. Shri Apte for the landlord points out that the latter part of section 32-F(1)(a) and the proviso to section 32-F(1-A) were introduced with effect from 17th October, 1969 by the Amending Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969. He contends that the amendment of section 32-F(1)(a) is prospective in operation and would not apply to a landlord who had already attained majority before 17-10-1969. He urges that in absence of the proviso to section 32-F(1-A), the present tenants would have lost their right of purchase on 2nd March, 1970, however by operation of the aforesaid proviso this period stood extended to 17th October, 1971. As the tenants failed to notify their desire of purchase even by this date, Shri Apte contends, the original order of the A.L.T. holding the purchase of the land ineffective is correct and should be restored.
5. To appreciate the submission of Shri Apte, it is necessary to reproduce the material provisions of section 32-F. Section 32-F(1)(a) runs as follows :---
"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections---
(a) where the landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to any mental or physical disability the tenant shall have the right to purchase such land under section 32 within one year from the expiry o
