Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
Smt. Radhabai Balkrishna Deshpande another.... Petitioners.
Versus
Shri Babu Dhondu Shewale, deceased,
by his heirs others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2806 of 1983 along with W.P. No. 2301 of 1990, decided on 13-6-2000.
Advocates appeared :
P.S. Dani, in W.P. No. 2806/1983, for the petitioners and in W.P. No. 2301/1990, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
V.S. Gokhale, in W.P. No. 2806/1983, for respondents Nos. 5, 7 and 8 and in W.P. No. 2301/1990, for the petitioners.
to the sale deed and also purchased a portion of land from the new landlord. Therefore the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent tenant deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of laches as well as he is estopped from challenging the correctness and validity of Sections 32-G and 32-P of the tenancy Act after a lapse of 15 years.-In the present case, the tenant not only appeared before the tenancy authorities in Section 32-G proceedings and made a voluntary statement that he was not interested in purchasing the suit land but also voluntarily handed over physical possession of the suit land in the proceedings taken out under Section 32-P of the tenancy Act. In substance the tenant surrendered his tenancy rights in respect of the suit lands and also handed over possession thereof to the petitioner No. 1 landlady. After the possession was acquired, the petitioner landlady entered into a transaction to sell the suit land in favour of petitioner No. All this was done in the presence and with the full knowledge of the respondent tenant and at no point of time did the respondent tenant take any exception to the said transaction. On the other hand, he along with his brother acted as a witness during the execution and registration of the 5aid document. Furthermore, the tenant purchased portion of land from the petitioner No. 2 by a registered sale deed. If all these facts are taken into account, it is absolutely unbelievable that the tenant had not voluntarily surrendered the land and to have relinquished all the rights that of a tenant therein. In the circumstances, it is too late in the day for the respondent to now challenge the decision rendered in the proceedings under Section 32-G and Section 32-P of the tenancy Act, especially when they have not only acquiesced of the said proceedings by not challenging the same but acted upon it by purchasing a part of the suit land admeasuring 1 Acre and 20 Rs. in January 1964 from petitioner No.2. Moreover, the challenge regarding the validity of proceedings under Section 32 G and 32 P is sought to be raised by the tenants by way of assailing the impugned decision of the Tribunal dated 22-4-1983 in the Writ Petition filed on 8-2-1990. There is absolutely no explanation to justify such a belated action. Accordingly, Court accept the stand taken by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent tenant deserves to be dismissed, not only on the ground of laches but because the respondents are estopped from challenging the correctness and validity of Section 32-G and 32-P of the Tenancy Act by way of present Writ Petition.
In the present case the transaction in question took place in the year 1964 and it is after lapse of about 15 years that the authority chose to initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 84-C of the tenancy Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, 1997 (6) SCC 71, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court has held that although no limitation is provided to initiate action under Section 84-C, yet the authority should act within a reasonable period. The Apex Court in the said decision was pleased to hold that the proceedings initiated by the authorities after a lapse of nine months was wholly beyond reasonable period and, therefore, without the authority of law. In the present case, the action has been initiated after a lapse of 15 years, which by no standards can be said to be a reasonable period. Consequently, the petition should succeed on this short ground that the proceedings under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act having been initiated after an unreasonable period cannot be sustained in law.
Article 227-Laches in petition-the challenge regarding the validity of proceedings under Section 32 G and 32 Pis sought to be raised by the tenants by way of assailing the impugned decision of the Tribunal dated 22-4-1982 in the Writ Petition filed on 8-2-1990 i.e. after about 7 years for which there seems no justification of delay. Hence the petition suffered from laches and is not maintainable.
2. The present proceedings are arising out of suo motu proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar and Tenancy Awal Karkun under section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The reason for initiating the said action indicated by the authority is that the petitioners, the original landowners, had sold these lands in contravention of the provisions of section 64 of the Tenancy Act.
3. Before I proceed to consider the rival contentions, the facts on the basis of which the present proceedings arise can be broadly stated as follows:
The suit lands were originally owned by petitioner No. 1 on the tiller's day, i.e., 1-4-1957. Respondent No. 1 was the tenant in respect of the said lands on the tiller's day. However, since petitioner No. 1 was a widow at the relevant time, the right to purchase the suit lands of respondent No. 1 stood postponed, in view of section 32-F of the Tenancy Act. Later on, in the year 1962, suo motu proceedings under section 32-G of the said Act were initiated for fixing the purchase price in respect of the said lands. In the said proceedings, the respondent-tenant appeared before the concerned authority and made a statement that he was not interested in purchasing the suit lands and that section 32-G proceedings be dropped. On the basis of the said statement made by the tenant, the said section 32-G proceedings came to be dropped. Since the respondent-tenant failed to exercise the option to purchase the suit lands, as required under the Act, the authorities initiated proceedings under section 32-P of the Act. In the said proceedings, the respondent-tenant handed over physical possession of the suit lands to the petitioner No. 1, without any demur.
4. Admittedly, the respondent-tenant did not challenge the orders passed either in section 32-G proceedings, or in section 32-P proceedings and as such the decision recorded by the Tenancy Court between the landlord and tenant became final and binding on the parties. What is important to note is that the respondent-tenant not only did not challenge the orders passed in the abovesaid proceedings, but acted as witness along with his brother on January 31, 1964 in the sale transaction between the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 59/1 which was by a registered sale-deed for consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. In other words, the respondent-tenant at no point of time made any grievance to anyone about the proceedings which had concluded against him, but on the other hand, had full knowledge about the subsequent steps taken by the petitioners and the third party rights created in the said land. Pursuant to the said agreement between the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2, the petitioner No. 2 was put in actual possession of the suit land on January 31, 1964. On the same day, interestingly, another piece of land out of the same Survey No. 59/1 was sold by petitioner No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 admeasuring about 1 Acre and 20 Rs. by a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 1.000/-. All these circumstances clearly go to show that the respondent-tenant had voluntarily made a statement before the c
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
