Back
1994 Supreme(Bom) 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dr. Saraf B.P., J.
Govind Shankar Aphale…. Petitioner.
Versus
Uttam Govind Chavan…. Respondent.
Writ Petition Nos. 1682 with 3789 to 3796 of 1986, decided on 20-1-1994.
Advocates appeared :
G.B. Karandikar, for petitioners.
D.B. Bhosale, for respondent.
The distinction between a joint family and a co-ownership is well-settled. A widow who is a co-owner of a property is not a member of a joint family, and therefore, the proviso to section 32-F(1)(a) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, does not apply to her case.
Headnote:
TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT - PURCHASE OF LAND BY TENANT - WIDOW LANDLORD - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PURCHASE - FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE - EFFECT - SECTION 32-F(1)(A) - PROVISO - APPLICABILITY - JOINT FAMILY - CO-OWNERSHIP - DISTINCTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, successors of a widow who owned 1/4th share in a land, challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and lower courts, which upheld the tenant's right to purchase the land under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act). The tenant claimed that he had substantially complied with the requirement of section 32-F(1)(a) of the Act, which gives a widow landlord's tenant the right to purchase the land within two years from the widow's death, as he had purchased part of the land in 1964 and expressed his desire to purchase the remaining land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the authorities below erred in equating co-ownership of a property with a member of a joint family. The widow in this case was a co-owner of the disputed property, and therefore, section 32-F(1)(a) of the Act applied to her case. The proviso to section 32-F(1)(a), which excludes joint family members from the right to purchase, was not applicable as the widow was not a member of a joint family.
Issues: 1. Whether section 32-F(1)(a) of the Act applied to the case where the landlord was a widow who was a co-owner of the land. 2. Whether the proviso to section 32-F(1)(a) excluded the widow's tenant from the right to purchase the land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 32-F(1)(a) of the Act applies to cases where the landlord is a widow who is a co-owner of the land. 2. The proviso to section 32-F(1)(a) excludes joint family members from the right to purchase the land, but it does not apply to co-owners.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal and the lower courts. The tenant's right to purchase the land was denied, and the land became available to the Tribunal for disposal in the manner laid down in section 32-P of the Act.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under :
The predecessor of the petitioners Smt. Anandibai had 25% share in the plot of land admeasuring 4 Acres 4 Gunthas situated in the village Konegaon and covered by Survey No. 100/2-B. Out of the balance 75% of the above land 25% belonged to one Dinkar Vishnu Aphale and 50% to Shankar Vishnu Aphale. In the extract of the village record maintained in Forms No. 7-A and 12 against the column 'Occupant' it was shown as under :
“Dinkar Vishnu Aphale — 0-4-0
Shankar Vishnu Aphale — 0-8-0
(455)
Anandibai Bhr. Narayan Vishnu Aphale — 0-4-0"
3. Proceedings were initiated in respect of the said land by the Additional Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal No. II, Karad under section 32-G of the Act for determination of the price of the land to be paid by the tenants who were deemed to have purchased the land on the tilers' day i.e. 1st April, 1957. In course of the proceedings, it was found that 25% of the land in question belonged to Smt. Anandibai, who was a widow. Therefore, order was passed under section 32-G only in respect of ¾th share of the land. In respect of ¼ th share of the land belonging to the widow no order was passed under section 32-G in view of the provisions of section 32-F of the Act. A direction was also given by the Additional Mamlatdar and Agriculture Lands Tribunal in his above order dated 31st March, 1964 for rectification of the Record of Rights that the landlady holding ¼ th share in the land was a widow by effecting a mutation in V.F. VI in respect of the survey land in question. Smt. Anandibai died on 3rd December, 1965 and her share devolved on her successors who are the petitioners in these writ petitions. Later, the tenant of the said land Govind Bhau Chavan also died and on his death the name of his son Uttam Govind Chavan was brought on record as his heir.
4. Thereafter on 22nd June, 1982 the respondent filed an application in the Court of the Tahsildar requesting him to fix the purchase price of the land belonging to Smt. Anandibai. The said application was apposed by the present petitioners on the ground that the respondent-tenant having failed to exercise his right to purchase the above land within two years from the death of Smt. Anandibai had lost the right to purchase the same and section 32-F came into operation which empowers the Tribunal to dispose of the land in the manner specified in sub-section (2) thereof. The Additional Tahsildar, however, did not accept the contention of the petitioners and held that since part of the land was purchase by the respondent-tenant in the year 1964 and since he was desirous of purchasing the suit land from the petitioners there was substantial compliance with the requirement of section 32-F(1)(a). He, therefore, proceeded with the fixation of purchase price of the land and fixed the same. The petitioners appealed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara against the above order. The Sub-Divisional Officer confirmed the order of the Additional Tahsildar. He was of the opinion that section 32-F(1)(a) of the Act ha
