The statutory transfer of ownership under the Tenancy Act of 1958 only transferred the land leased to the tenant and did not include trees that were not part of the lease. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to confer rights in trees on the tenant upon the statutory transfer of ownership.

Headnote:
TENANCY ACT - SECTION 41, 46, 47, 48, 49A, 90 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 8 - M. P. LAND REVENUE CODE - SECTION 162 - MAHARASHTRA LAND REVENUE CODE - SECTION 25 - TREES - OWNERSHIP - STATUTORY TRANSFER - RIGHTS OF TENANT - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - LEGISLATIVE INTENT - CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES - LEGAL PRINCIPLES - OWNERSHIP RIGHTS - BUNDLES OF RIGHTS - FULL OWNERSHIP - TENURE-HOLDER - RIGHTS IN TREES - SAVING OF RIGHTS - PURCHASE OF RIGHTS - PRICE DETERMINATION - COMPENSATION - AGRICULTURAL LANDS TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - COMPULSORY TRANSFERS - LEASE - DEEMING PROVISIONS - STATUTORY OWNERSHIP - TILLERS DAY - BHOOMISWAMI - BHUMIDHARI - STATUTORY CONVEYANCE - LEGISLATIVE POLICY - PROTECTED LEASES - OCCUPANCY TENANT - LANDLORD - TENANT RELATIONSHIP - AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS - VIDARBHA REGION - MAHARASHTRA - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND - CUSTOMARY RIGHTS - SHADE-RIGHTS - LAC CULTIVATION - TIMBER TREES - IMPROVEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND - RIGHTS OF TENURE-HOLDERS - RIGHTS OF OCCUPANTS - BERAR REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL LEASES ACT, 1951 - BERAR LAND REVENUE CODE, 1928 - CENTRAL PROVINCES TENANCY ACT, 1920 - AGRA TENANCY ACT - FULL BENCH DECISIONS - ENGLISH MAXIM - QUIDQUID PLANTATUR SOLO, SOLO CEDIT - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS - LEGISLATIVE METAMORPHOSIS - INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP - INHIBITIONS ON OWNERSHIP - DISUSE OF LAND - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY - STATUTORY INTENDMENT - EXPRESS TERMS - ABROGATION OF RIGHTS - PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS - STATUTORY PURCHASE - FAIR PRICE - COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY - JUST AND EQUIVALENT COMPENSATION - VALUABLE PROPERTY - SANDIE-WOOD - CATECHU - JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION - PERMISSIVE COURSE - AGRICULTURAL LANDS TRIBUNAL - DETERMINATION OF PRICE - CERTIFICATE OF TRANSFER - TENURE-HOLDER STATUS - REMISSION OF MATTER - DIRECTIONS TO TRIBUNAL - COSTS OF PETITION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, land-holders, challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which held that the mango trees standing in the leased land passed with the land leased to the tenant upon the statutory purchase under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (Tenancy Act of 1958). The petitioners contended that the trees were not part of the tenancy and should be paid for separately. The tenant argued that the law contemplated the passing of the land and everything attached thereto, including trees.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the trees standing in the leased land did not pass with the land leased to the tenant upon the statutory purchase under the Tenancy Act of 1958. The Court found that the Tenancy Act of 1958 only transferred the land leased to the tenant and did not include trees that were not part of the lease. The Court further held that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to confer rights in trees on the tenant upon the statutory transfer of ownership.
Issues: 1. Whether the trees standing in the leased land passed with the land leased to the tenant upon the statutory purchase under the Tenancy Act of 1958? 2. Whether the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had jurisdiction to confer rights in trees on the tenant upon the statutory transfer of ownership?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tenancy Act of 1958 only transferred the land leased to the tenant and did not include trees that were not part of the lease. 2. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to confer rights in trees on the tenant upon the statutory transfer of ownership.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the Tenancy authorities, and remitted the matter back to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal to be decided in accordance with the directions given by the Court. The petitioners were entitled to their costs of the petition from the respondents.

JUDGMENT-An interesting but important question relating to the statutory ownership that the tenant is entitled to possess under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act of 1958) and his right to get upon such transfer all the trees in a holding. has been raised in this petition.

2. Certain facts may be noticed. The respondents 1 to 7 appear to be the lessees of Survey No. 204, area 12.38 acres, a field assessed to Rs. 30 /- and situate at village Thugaon-Purna of district Amravati. One Bhikamchand is the predecessor-in-title of these respondents. It appears that on December 21, 1962, he made an offer to the land holders who are the petitioners in this case for the purchase of the field under the Tenancy Act of 1958 at a' statutory price. Meanwhile the land· holders bad taken proceedings for resumption of the land under that Act on the ground that they needed the same for personal cultivation. Those proceedings terminated on October 19, 1964. Thereafter, on September 20, 1965, an application was made by said Bhikamchand to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Amravati, for the determination of the reasonable price of the land as provided by the Tenancy Act of' 1958. In that application it was admitted that there were mango trees in the land, and he had a statutory right to purchase the land leased to him for a statutory price to be determined by the Tribunal.

3. Before the tribunal the fact of lease was not in dispute. However, with respect to trees, the land-holder asserted that there were mango trees as well as other trees and two wells in the land. It was specifically urged that mango trees did not form part of the tenancy nor can be covered by the land leased. Evidence was recorded as the number of the trees standing was in dispute. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal came to the conclusion that there' were 40 mango trees but it having taken the view that as it was not established as to who had planted them, it did not fix any price. By following the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal fixed the price of the land at Rs. 2521.41. In an appeal to the Special Deputy, Collector it was urged that the mango trees did not pass with the land leased nor any such right of purchase as to trees can be claimed by the tenant and if at all trees were to be transferred the land holder is entitled to its price as admittedly the same were not planted by the tenant. The fact that the trees were in the possession of the land-holders and they were taking the yield there from was restated and asserted. The appellate authority declined to Interfere and the matter was taken in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal took the view that the case of the land-holder was not that the trees were excluded from the lease. The mere assertion of the land holders that they were in possession of the mango trees and were taking the yield, according to the learned Member, was not sufficient. However, the learned Member observed that the trees growing on land would also has under the statutory purchase and there was no cause to settle any price or pay to the land holders.

4. It is plain that a very technical approach was taken by the learned Member of the Maharahtra Revenue Tribunal upon the pleadings of the parties. In fact throughout the petitioners land-holders were contending that the trees were not part of the lease and as such if at all they were to be transfer red to the tenant, they must be paid the price or compensation; View take by the Revenue Tribunal upon the case of the land-holders on the face of it in erroneous. That is sufficient to set aside that order.

5. However, an important controversy is raised as to whether there in any jurisdiction in the Agricultural Lands Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Tenancy Act of 1938 to confer rights in trees on the tenant who either becomes the statutory owner on the ti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis