Back
2012 (1) ALL MR 850
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
G.S. GODBOLE
Nivrutti Gangaram Pawar, since deceased & Others
Versus
Dinkar Matuti Jadhav
WRIT PETITION NO. 1308 OF 1990
Decided on : 13-12-2011
Legislative intent can be advanced and sub-served by a harmonious construction and harmonious reading of the finding precedent of the Division (Bench and the Supreme Court and can be achieved by interpreting the observations of the Supreme Court in relation to the economic holding and income in the context of the facts of each case. It is not possible to hold that the Supreme Court has laid down any proposition of law that the moment a certified landlord dies at any stage of proceedings initiated under Section 33-B, the heirs must ipso facto again satisfy requirement of Section 88-C. This would completely nullify the legislative intent behind enacting a beneficial provision for a very small and poor land owner whose interest are sought to be protected vis-à-vis his tenant holding larger area of land than held by the landlord which is precisely the case in hand.
The words "economic holding and income of the landlord" will have to be construed in the context of only the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The present petitioners were brought on record as heirs of a certified landlord. In the facts of the present case even if one proceeds on the basis of finding of fact reached by the S.D.O. and affirmed by the Tribunal based on the admission of ’P ’ to the effect that his income was around Rs. 200 to 300 p.m., all that can be said is that maximum income of ’P ’ at the time of recording his deposition was Rs. 300/- per month or Rs. 3,600/- per annum. Even this income cannot be held to be a handsome income so as to affect the bona fide needs of ’P ’ to have the land resumed, particularly in backdrop of the fact that the land presently in possession of ’P ’ is only 1 acre and 5 gunthas as against the total holding of respondent which is almost 15 acres. It is not shown that the need pleaded by ’P ’ is mala fide need. Merely because ’P ’ is working as a barber in a place at a distance about 25 to 30 k.m. from the suit land is also not a factor which would militate against his bona fid requirement to cultivate his own land. If his holding is meagre holding of 1 acre 5 gunt has, it is possible to hold that for such a small holding, it may not be remunerative for him to leave his present vocation of barber and depend only on the income of a small piece of 1 acre 5 gunt has land which is in his possession. Thus, insofar as first criteria of bona fid requirement is concerned, the same has been duly established by ’P ’ independently and finding in that regard will have to be returned in favour of the petitioner landlord.
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 33-B and 88-C - Object of - Object of Sections 33-B and 88-C of Act is to enable landlord having small portion of land to cultivate land personally and augment their meager income.
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is an Act to amend the law relating to the Tenancy of the Agricultural Lands. The Act was enacted on account of the fact that due to the disputes between landlords, land holders and tenants, the cultivation of the estate had seriously suffered. The Act was also enacted for the purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of peasants and for ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agricultural purpose and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural land.
1 Heard Mr. R.V. Govilkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.G. Karandikar i/by Dilip Bodake, learned Advocate for the Respondents.
2. Proceedings for eviction commenced by a certificated landlord against an excluded tenant under the BT & AL Act, 1948 have remained pending after having travelled from the Mamlatdar to the SDO, to the MRT, to the High Court and to the Supreme Court and on remand the Petition is being decided. As is usual in proceedings between landlord and tenant under the BT & AL Act, 1948, the litigants are forced to run from one forum to another forum. Like the game of foot ball, the litigants travel from one forum to another forum.
3. The present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.1989 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in Revision Application No. 85/1987 filed under the provisions of Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”, for short) whereby the Revision Application filed by the landlord -Petitioner was dismissed and the Judgment and Order dated 10th February, 1987 passed by the learned S.D.O. Phaltan in Tenancy Appeal No. 13/1985 thereby allowing the said Appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 11th February, 1985 passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon in Tenancy Case No. 53/1984 allowing the said Application for restoration of the possession under Section 33(B) read with Section 29 of the B.T.& A.L. Act, 1948.
4. As stated in para 1 above, this case has a checkered history and the parties to the litigation have undergone at least three remands (including last remand by the Supreme Court) and the litigation which was commenced in the year 1964 is being decided after a long gap of 47 years by this Court. It is, therefore, necessary to briefly note relevant statutory provisions and the facts.
5. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is an Act to amend the law relating to the Tenancy of the Agricultural Lands. The Act was enacted on account of the fact that due to the disputes between landlords, land holders and tenants, the cultivation of the estate had seriously suffered. The Act was also enacted for the purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of peasants and for ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agricultural purpose and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural land. Section 6 and 6A of the said Act deal with the “economic holding” and “irrigated land” and read thus:
“6. Economic holding:
(1) For the purpose of this Act, an economic holding shall be,--
(a) 16 acres of jirayat land, or
(b) 8 acres of seasonally irrigated land, or paddy or rice land, or
(c) 4 acres of perennially irrigated land.
(2) Where the land held by a person consists of two or more kinds of land specified in sub-section (1), an economic holding shall be determined on the basis applicable to the ceiling area under subsection (2) of section 5.
[Explanation .-- In calculating an economic holding, warkas land shall be excluded]
6A. Irrigated land
For the purposes of this Act, --
(a) irrigated land, whether perennially or seasonally irrigated, shall not include land irrigated by sources other than canals or bundharas within the meaning of the Bombay Irrigation Act, 1879, or any lift irrigation system constructed or maintained by the State Government;
(b) seasonally irrigated land shall include alluvial land and land situated in the bed of a river and seasonally flooded by the water of such river.”.
6. Section 32 of the said Act provides that on the first day of April, 1957 (hereinafter referred as “the tillers day”) every tenant shall, [subject to the other provisions of this section and the provisions of] the next succeeding sections, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day, the land
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
