2004 Supreme(Bom) 988

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Khanwilkar A.M., J.
Motiram Jagannath Bhoir .... Petitioner.
Versus
Rajaram Gopal Mhaskar others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 912 of 1990, decided on 16-7-2004.
Advocates appeared :
S.G. Karandikar, for petitioner.
T.K. Patil, for respondents.

Headnote:Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 32-F - Nature of Section 32-F of Act. - Section 32-F of Tenancy Act has no retrospective effect. AIR 1995 SC 2164 and AIR 1999 SC 1963 - Relied on. - Having considered the rival submissions, Court has no hesitation in taking the view that the Tribunal has committed manifest error in interfering with the concurrent view taken by the two authorities below. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was minor on the tillers’ day. On account of that fact, by operation of law, the tillers’ day stood postponed by virtue of Section 32-F of the Act. The said section obligates the tenant to exercise his right to purchase the suit land within the specified time by sending the intimation failing which the consequences are that the purchase would become ineffective. In the present case, the respondent tenant sent intimation, but after the specified time, and almost after 15 years from the date when the petitioner became major. In this backdrop, the view taken by the two authorities below was inevitable. The two authorities below had rightly taken the view that the purchase in favour of the respondent tenant has become ineffective and action under Section 32-P of the Act for resumption of land was intimated. No fault can be found with the said view. However, the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the provisions of Section 32-F of the Act had retrospective effect. This view is clearly contrary to the well-settled legal position as expounded by the Apex Court in AIR 1995 SC 2164 in the case of Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai. In that sense, the first reason, which has weighed with the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

        The second reason which weighed with the Tribunal, perhaps on the assumption that Section 32-F of the Act has retrospective effect is that it was not necessary for the tenant to send intimation under Section 32-F. Even that reasoning cannot be sustained in view of the exposition of the Apex Court in AIR 1999 SC 1963, in the case of Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapathi Nimbalkar. In other words, the basis on which the Tribunal interfered in favour of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the decision of the Tribunal will have to be reversed and, instead, rendered tenancy authority as affirmed by the appellate authority will have to be restored. This writ petition, therefore, succeeds on the above terms. No order as to costs.

       Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 32-F and 32-P - Intimation for purchase of land under Section 32-F. - Failure of tenant to give intimation under Section 32-F of Act within specified time, renders purchase in favour of tenant ineffective. - Having considered the rival submissions. Court has no hesitation in taking the view that the Tribunal has committed manifest error in interfering with the concurrent view taken by the two authorities below. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was minor on the tillers’ day. On account of that fact, by operation of law, the tillers’ day stood postponed by virtue of Section 32-F of the Act. The said section obligates the tenant to exercise his right to purchase the suit land within the specified time by sending the intimation failing which the consequences are that the purchase would become ineffective. In the present case, the respondent tenant sent intimation, but after the specified time, and almost after 15 years from the date when the petitioner became major. In this backdrop, the view taken by the two authorities below was inevitable. The two authorities below had rightly taken the view that the purchase in favour of the respondent tenant has become ineffective and action under Section 32-P of the Act for resumption of land was initiated. No fault can be found with the said view. However, the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the provisions of Section 32-F of the Act had retrospective effect. This view is clearly contrary to the well-settled legal position as expounded by the Apex Court in AIR 1995 SC 2164 in the case of Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai. In that sense, the first reason, which has weighed with the Tribunal cannot be sustained.