2007 Supreme(Bom) 1319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.M. KANADE, J.
Smt.Akkabai Bapurao Power -Petitioners
versus
Lahu Vithu Kurne -Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 195 OF 1988
Decided on : SEPTEMBER 13, 2007

Headnote:Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 32-F (1) (a)-Intimation -Given by tenant to landlord about his intention to purchase land after period of disability is over-Question whether intimation given or not, is a question of fact.-The submission of Shri Bandiwadekar appearing for the petitioners that the authorities did not have inherent jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 32-G since no intimation was given under Section 32-F (1A) of the said Act, also cannot be accepted. The ratio of the two judgments on which reliance was placed is absolutely not applicable to the facts of the present case. Section 32-F (1A) contemplates that after the period of disability is over, tenant has to give intimation to the landlord who has an intention to purchase the land. The question whether intimation is given or not, is obviously a question of fact. This question having been finally decided by the lower authorities in favour of respondent No. 1, it cannot be said, therefore, that the lower authorities did not have inherent jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 32-G. Similarly, the ratio of the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 636/66 on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner also will not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the facts were that tenant was not in possession of the land and therefore, the Court observed that being the position, it will not be possible to pass an order in favour of the tenant under Section 32-G of the said Act.

       Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 32-G-Proceeding under -Cannot be postponed on more than one occasion-Proceeding once postponed cannot be postponed again.-In spite of the judicial order passed by this Court, the landlady again filed proceedings for postponement of 32-G proceedings on the ground that she is a widow. It is an admitted position that original landlady Muktabai was a widow on the cut off date i.e. 1.4.57 and therefore, the proceedings were postponed and after hearing both, proceeding again commenced and order was passed in favour of the tenant which was finally confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3234/82. It is further well settled that proceedings under 32-G cannot be postponed on more than one occasion and therefore, the proceedings which were dropped by ALT on the ground that Muktabai was a widow, obviously was illegal and such proceedings are not contemplated under the provisions of BT & AL Act. Secondly, the proceedings which was initiated by the petitioner No. 1 under the provisions of Section 14 read with Section 29 of the BT & AL Act also could not have been initiated since already in June, 1983 this Court had finally held that respondent No. 1 was a deemed purchaser in respect of both these lands. In spite of this order, the lower authorities continued to pass various orders in various proceedings which were taken out by the petitioner herein only with a view to protract the proceeding. The MRT has considered all these aspects and has accordingly set aside the orders passed by the ALT and confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The MRT has held that after the matter was finally concluded by this Court, it was not open for the petitioner to reagitate the issue again before different forum under different provisions.

       Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 32-F (1) (a) - Intimation - Given by tenant to landlord about his intention to purchase land after period of disability is over - Question whether intimation given or not, is a question of fact. - The submission of Shri Bandiwadekar appearing for the petitioners that the authorities did not have inherent jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 32-G since no intimation was given under Section 32-F (1A) of the said Act, also cannot be accepted. The ratio of the two judgments on which reliance was placed is absolutely not applicable to the facts of the present case. Section 32-F (1A) contemplates that after the period of disability is over, tenant has to give intimation to the landlord who has an intention to purchase the land. The question whether intimation is given or not, is obviously a question of fact. This question having been finally decided by the lower authorities in favour of respondent No. 1, it cannot be said, therefore, that the lower authorities did not have inherent jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 32-G. Similarly, the ratio of the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 636/66 on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner also will not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the facts were that tenant was not in possession of the land and therefore, the Court observed that being the position, it will not be possible to pass an order in favour of the tenant under Section 32-G of the said Act.