SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Bom) 708

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.
Shri Subhash Govind Bhanushali ..... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra others ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2736 of 1984, decided on 24-12-1997.
Advocates appeared :
Arvind A. Joshi, for the petitioner.

THE TRANSFER OF LAND UNDER SECTION 32-P OF THE TENANCY ACT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A TRANSFER OF TRIBAL LAND UNDER THE RESTORATION ACT.

Headnote:

RESTORATION ACT - SECTION 7 - SECTION 2(1)(I) - SECTION 32-G, 32-P OF BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT - THE COURT HELD THAT THE LAND DISPOSED OF BY THE OPERATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32-P OF THE TENANCY ACT, THE RESTORATION ACT HAS NO APPLICATIONS AS THE DISPOSAL OF THE LAND INVOKING SECTION 32-P CANNOT BE TREATED AS TRANSFER OF THE TRIBAL LAND TO THE NON-TRIBAL.

Fact of the Case:

THE PETITIONER CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, KONKAN DIVISION, BOMBAY, RESTORING 18 ACRES AND 16 GUNTHAS OF LAND IN VIKRAMGARH VILLAGE, TAL. JAVHAR DISTRICT THANE, TO RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE MAHARASHTRA LANDS RESTORATION TO SCHEDULED TRIBES ACT, 1974 (RESTORATION ACT). THE PETITIONER, A BONA FIDE PURCHASER OF THE LAND FROM THE FORMER OWNER, ARGUED THAT THE RESTORATION ACT DID NOT APPLY AS THE LAND WAS DISPOSED OF UNDER SECTION 32-P OF THE BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 (TENANCY ACT) AND NOT TRANSFERRED TO A NON-TRIBAL.

Finding of the Court:

THE COURT HELD THAT THE LAND DISPOSED OF BY THE OPERATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32-P OF THE TENANCY ACT, THE RESTORATION ACT HAS NO APPLICATIONS AS THE DISPOSAL OF THE LAND INVOKING SECTION 32-P CANNOT BE TREATED AS TRANSFER OF THE TRIBAL LAND TO THE NON-TRIBAL.

Issues: 1. WHETHER THE RESTORATION ACT APPLIES TO LAND DISPOSED OF UNDER SECTION 32-P OF THE TENANCY ACT? 2. WHETHER THE TRANSFER OF LAND UNDER SECTION 32-P OF THE TENANCY ACT AMOUNTS TO A TRANSFER OF TRIBAL LAND?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. THE COURT INTERPRETED SECTION 2(1)(I) OF THE RESTORATION ACT, WHICH DEFINES "TRANSFER" IN RELATION TO LAND, AND HELD THAT THE TRANSFER OF LAND UNDER SECTION 32-P OF THE TENANCY ACT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "TRANSFER" UNDER THE RESTORATION ACT. 2. THE COURT ALSO CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF SECTION 32-G OF THE TENANCY ACT, WHICH DEALS WITH THE PURCHASE OF LAND BY TENANTS, AND HELD THAT ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 32-G BECOME INEFFECTIVE, THE LAND IS DIVESTED FROM THE TENANT AND VESTS IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT.

Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER RESTORING THE LAND TO RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6.

JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17th December, 1983 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay in Appeal/Desk/WTN/4713 communicated on 16-5-1984 evidenced by Exh. A to the writ petition. By the impugned order, the land admeasuring 18 acres and 16 gunthas in Vikramgarh village, Tal. Javhar District Thane, comprising in various survey numbers was ordered to be restored in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in exercise of the power under section 7 of the Maharashtra Lands Restoration to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Restoration Act" for short) in Restoration Case No. TNC/ACT XIV/SR-9 dt. 18th September, 1977. The Divisional Commissioner passed this impugned order setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar under section 4 of the said Act whereby the application for restoration of land in question at the instance of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were dropped.

2. The short facts for the purpose of this case can be stated thus :

The petitioner is bona fide purchaser of the aforesaid land form erstwhile owner Shri. Shrimant Yeshwantrao Maharaj respondent No. 4 as per sale deed dated 6-5-1972. Earlier the aforesaid land was in possession by the tribal respondent Nos. 5 and 6. By virtue of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called "Tenancy Act") proceedings were initiated in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were holding the land as tenants on the tiller's date namely 1-4-1957. However, the proceedings under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act has become ineffective. Consequently by virtue of section 32-P of the Tenancy Act, land was again divested to the landlord respondent No. 4 from whom, as noted earlier, the present petitioner purchased the land. According to petitioner, the character of the land itself has been changed in respect of the portion of a land and with permission of the Collector, the land got converted into non-agricultural use for the area of 2962 sq. mtrs. When the Restoration Act came into force, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 applied under section 4 of the said Act for restoration of the land. Tahsildar as stated earlier, after hearing the parties dropped the proceedings holding that the said Act does not apply to the land. No appeal has been filed against that order. After five years second respondent, Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai issued notice invoking section 7 of the Act and ultimately impuged order came to be passed.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation alone. He submits that even though the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for invocation of section 7 of the Restoration Act, second respondent has erred in passing the impugned order as he has not invoked his power within the reasonable time. The Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the land which was disposed of by the operation of provisions of section 32-P of the Tenancy Act, the Restoration Act has no applications as held in the decision reported in (State of Maharashtra v. Khatua Makauji Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bombay)1, 1987 M.L.J. 908 as the disposal of the land invoking section 32-P cannot be treated as transfer of the tribal land to the non-tribal. The learned G.P. has contended that the land has been disposed of in favour of the respondent No. 4 as per section 32-P and contends that order passed by Mamlatdar to transfer the land in favour of the respondent No. 4 invoking section 32-P can very well be considered as transfer going by the definition of "transfer" in relation to land occurring in section 2(1)(i) of the Restoration Act? In order to appreciate the argument of the learned G.P. we have to examine the definition of transfer in the Restoration Act.

"Transfer" in relation to land means the transfer of land belon














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top