Rangnath Dashrath Vadar deceased through heirs & others vs Bhagatsing Vithalsing Kotwal Power of Attorney Girajabai Vithalsing Kotwal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(Bom) 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Bobde S.A., J.
Rangnath Dashrath Vadar deceased through heirs others.... Petitioners.
Versus
Bhagatsing Vithalsing Kotwal Power of Attorney
Girajabai Vithalsing Kotwal.... Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 1760 of 1987, decided on 8-1-2003.
Advocates appeared :
S.G. Karandikar, for petitioners.

Headnote:Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 - Sections 4, 5 and 8 - Resumption and regrant of land - Challenge to order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal - Confirmation of regranting of land favouring tenant at occupancy price - It was contended that land could not be regranted unless provisions of repurchase are not followed - Without resumption and regrant of land provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act shall not be applicable. - Thus, the legislative scheme of the Watans Abolition Act provides for resumption of the land, its regrant to the watandar or an authorised or an unauthorised holder. As far as leases are concerned, the Watans Abolition Act provides that the leases shall be governed by the relevant tenancy law, however, "subject to the provisions of this Act". It is, therefore, clear that the Act requires its own provisions pertaining to resumption and regrant to be complied with, even in a case of land lawfully leased.
       In other words, the tenancy law is made applicable to a subsisting lease only after compliance with the provisions of resumption and regrant of the lands to the landlord. Indeed, there can be no escape from that, because if there is no regrant under the provisions of the Watans Abolition Act, the land stands resumed vide Section 4; and if not regranted, it is clear that the title to the land would vest exclusively in the State until the State parts with it by regrant. In a situation where there is no regrant, it would not be possible to apply the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, particularly those relating to the deemed purchase of the land from the landlord and determination and payment of purchase price to the landlord. This is so because the tenant, under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, is deemed to be a purchaser from the landlord and is liable to pay the purchase price to the landlord. The Bombay Tenancy Act does not contemplate the State Government in whom the lands would vest on resumption if not regranted as a landlord.
       There appears to be no doubt whatsoever about the fact that the Watans Abolition Act deals with hereditary offices created by the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874. Therefore, it must be held that unless the land is regranted, after resumption, it would not be possible to apply the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, in particular Sections 32 to 32-R.
       In the result, the relationship between the parties in respect of the land in question would not be liable to be governed by the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, the lands having been resumed by the State Government under the provisions of the Watans Abolition Act unless the land is regranted, in accordance with the provisions of the latter Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a). In the result, the proceedings under Section 32-G as well as the orders passed therein are quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

JUDGMENT - BOBDE S.A., J.:---The petitioner, who is a tenant of agricultural lands, challenges the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 1-1-1987 by which that Tribunal has confirmed the order of the two courts below. In effect, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has confirmed the orders by which the purchase of the land in question by the petitioner-tenant has been declared ineffective and the land has been directed to be disposed of under the provisions of section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Tenancy Act").

2. The petitioners are heirs of the original tenant and the respondent was the landlord. The land in question is Survey No. 30, situate at village Karkamb in Pandharpur taluka.

3. The land in question is an Inam land governed by the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Watans Abolition Act"). The respondent is a Watandar. On 5-2-1969, proceedings for purchase of the land by the petitioner were dropped because the respondent watandar was a minor. The petitioner gave an intimation of his willingness to purchase the land on 29-8-1971. On 19-9-1973 the respondent attained majority.

4. It appears that on 5-6-1973, 32-G proceedings instituted were again dropped on the ground that the land had not been regranted under the Watans Abolition Act. In 1976 these proceedings were again initiated and they were dropped on 28-12-1976 apparently on the statement made by the landlord that he had not paid occupancy price under the Watans Abolition Act. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the dropping of the proceedings. By an order dated 14-10-1981, the S.D.O. allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the A.L.T. for a fresh decision. While remanding the matter, the S.D.O. made a specific direction to consider the effect of the petitioners having paid the occupancy price under the Watans Abolition Act instead of the landlord.

5. After the remand on 31-12-1983, the A.L.T. found that the tenant was not entitled to purchase the land in view of the fact that there was no intimation given by the petitioners under section 32-F within the period contemplated by that section. Section 32-F requires a tenant to give an intimation within one year from the expiry of the period during which the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31. The period provided by section 31 is one year.

6. The A.L.T. observed that the landlord had not paid the occupancy price for regrant within the stipulated period and further observed that such lands can be regranted in favour of a tenant who has paid the occupancy price.

7. The petitioners appeal against the order of the A.L.T. has been dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 21-1-1986. The M.R.T. has by the impugned order confirmed the orders of the two courts below.

8. Mr. Karandikar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy Act have erred in not properly applying the provisions of the Watans Abolition Act. According to the learned Counsel, under the Watans Abolition Act, unless the land is regranted to either the landlord or an authorised holder who may be a purchaser from the landlord or even the tenant, the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act which provide for a statutory purchase by the tenant cannot be applied. Needless to say, if the land is regranted to a tenant, then there will be no question of the tenant seeking a statutory purchase.

9. It is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Watans Abolition Act to appreciate the contention on behalf of the petitioners. The Watans Abolition Act was enacted to abolish the hereditary village offices of degree lower than that of a revenue or Police Patil or village accountant and the watans appertaining thereto prevailing in the Pre-Reorganisation State of Bombay, excluding the transferred and certain other territories. The provisions relevant to the prese

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday