Back
2002 Supreme(Bom) 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Chitre J.G., J.
Rama Dattu Naikwade since deceased by his heir .... Petitioner.
Versus
Govinda Bala Patil since deceased by his heirs others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3807 of 1988, decided on 8-1-2002.
Advocates appeared :
M.R. Katikar, for petitioner.
M.R. Suryavanshi, for respondent No. 1.
The court emphasized the importance of interpreting legal provisions in line with the spirit of the law and held that findings of facts consistent with evidence and law cannot be dislodged by a revisional authority.
Headnote:
Bombay Tenancy Act - Compulsory Sale of Land - Section 43-A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Member of M.R.T. in a dispute regarding the compulsory sale of land under the Bombay Tenancy Act. The lower authorities had conflicting findings on whether the land was leased for growing sugarcane, which would fall under section 43-A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Member of M.R.T. had acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the findings of facts recorded by the lower authority. It held that the judgment and order of the M.R.T. were suffering from infirmities and were illegal, and thus set them aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the land was leased for the purpose of growing sugarcane, falling under section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The court also addressed the jurisdiction of the M.R.T. in setting aside the findings of the lower authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of understanding the purpose behind enacting section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act and interpreting its provisions in line with the spirit of the law. It held that the findings of facts consistent with evidence and law cannot be dislodged by a revisional authority.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and a writ of certiorari was issued in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the judgment of the M.R.T. and restoring the judgment passed by the lower authority. The Tahsildar and A.L.T. were directed to proceed with the proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
2. One Maruti Govind Patil the L.R. of Govind Bala Patil, the deceased, submitted an application before the Tahsildar and A.L.T. Radhanagari for an order effecting compulsory sale of the suit land. Originally 32-G proceeding was started in respect of the suit land and it was held that section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for convenience) was applicable to the matter. It gave rise to Tenancy Appeal No. 115 of 1973 and it further gave rise to Revision Application bearing No. M.R.T. KP 439/73 which was decided by M.R.T. on 10-8-1978 with the following remarks :-
"For dropping the proceeding under section 32-G......what is important is the purpose of the lease. There must be instrument of lease. If there is no instrument there must be an agreement between parties to the effect that the land is leased out for the purpose of lease."
3. Accordingly, notices were issued. The date of hearing was fixed. The parties were present and evidence was recorded by Tahsildar and A.L.T. The Tahsildar and A.L.T. formulated the following points for adjudication :-
1) Whether there exists between the parties the relationship of landlords and tenant since prior to 1-4-57 (Tillers day).
2) Whether the holding of the tenant including the acreage of the suit land is below ceiling limit.
3) Whether there is agreement to raise sugarcane in the suit land and whether it comes under the purview of section 43-A of the Act.
4) Whether the tenant is entitled to purchase the suit land and if so to what extent.
5) What would be the purchase price of the suit land and in how many instalments it should be made payable.
4. The Tahsildar and A.L.T. held that the suit land is below ceiling limit. He recorded the finding that it was proved that the suit land was leased and the extract produced by the landlord showed that sugarcane was alternatively grown. He held that there was an oral agreement between the parties to raise sugarcane in the suit land and, therefore, the matter comes under the purview of section 43-A of Bombay Tenancy Act. He held that the tenant was not entitled to purchase it.
5. An appeal was preferred which was decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahuwadi Division Kolhapur bearing T.N.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the judgment and order passed by Tahsildar and A.L.T. He held that suit land was not leased out for the purpose of growing sugarcane and for coming to this conclusion he had discussed the evidence on record.
6. The matter went to M.R.T. BY its judgment dated 15-3-1988, the learned Member of M.R.T. set aside the judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahuwadi Division Kolhapur and held the suit land was given on lease for growing sugarcane. For coming to this conclusion, the learned Member upset the findings of facts recorded by S.D.O. Shahuwadi dismissing the contention of the landlord that the said land was given for growing sugarcane and the matter was falling under the purview of section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the approach adopted by the learned Member of M.R.T. was totally erroneous because he was acting without jurisdiction in setting aside the finding of facts recorded by S.D.O. Shahuwadi without any justification. He submitted that there was nothing on record to show that the present matter was falling under purview of section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act. He prayed for a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner for quashing the said judgment and order passed by the le
