A person who is an agriculturist in another state can purchase land in Maharashtra if he complies with the requirements of section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.

JUDGMENT-All the three authorities below have held that although the petitioner Abdul Karim Peersaheb Shaikh an agriculturist from Karnataka State, however he will not be deemed to be an agriculturist within the State of Maharashtra unless he personally cultivates the agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra. This view of the Authorities be low is challenged in this Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Few facts leading to this application are as under:-

2. In the first instance, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the land Survey No. 64, from village Bale. Taluka North Sholapur, on February 3, 1967 for a consideration of Rs. 21,500 and Rs. 2,500 were paid by the petitioner by way of' an earnest. The petitioner had given a notice on June 16, 1967 to sell the land in his favaur to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Further, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the land to respondent No. 4 for an amount of Rs. 28,000. It is, therefore, a Special C. Suit No.8 of 1970 was filed for specific performance of the contract and for actual possession of the land to him. In the suit, itself a plea was taken that the petitioner is not an agriculturist and therefare, there could not be sale in favaur of the petitioner. On the basis of the said plea and in view of the provisions of sections 63 and 64 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) a reference was made to the Tenancy Authorities under section 85-A of the Tenancy Act.

3. The petitioner led the evidence to prove that he is an agriculturist before the Tahsildar, North-Sholapur. The petitioner brought an the record a rent-note dated May 18, 1972 in respect of the land held by the petitioner's joint family at Shindagi (Karnataka State). He has also produced some evidence to show that he has cultivated the land in the Maharashtra State. However, that evidence was not believed by the learned Tahsildar. The learned Tahsildar, on careful consideration of the evidence on record observed:

"In view of the facts discussed above, it is clear that there is no evidence on record to prove that the plaintiff is an agriculturist except the evidence of land at Village Shindagi in District Vijapur in Karnataka State. But the Bombay Tenancy Act is applicable only to the Bombay area of the Maharashtra State. The provisions of the Act will only govern the persons and the lands situate within the area. It cannot be given an extra-territorial application beyond the limits of the Maharashtra State area."

In view of these observations, it was held that the petitioner is not an agriculturist. On appeal by the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sholapur Division Sholapur in Tenancy Appeal No. II of 1974, was pleased to dismiss the appeal by holding that-

"It is well settled fact that the lands held by a person outside the Maharashtra State cannot be taken into account in spite of fact that they are agriculturists."

On revision by the petitioner, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, confirmed the said view and dismissed the revision application by judgment and order dated January 14, 1975. Against the said judgment, and order, the present Special Civil Applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. P. S. Patankar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the view taken by the Courts below is erroneous. He submitted that if a person is an agriculturist in another State, he cannot be denied a right to purchase the land in this State under the provisions of sections 63 and 64 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.

5. Mr. J. R. Lalit, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, tried to support the finding recorded by the Courts below. He submitted that whether a person is an agriculturist or not is to be decided having regard to his own avocation or occupation in the State of Maharashtra.

6. In my view, all the three Authorities below mis-directed themse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document