Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 2214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Hindurao Ganpati Mandhre
Vs.
Mahadeo Vittal Mandhre & Anr.
Writ Petition No. 1195 of 1995
Decided on : 30th November, 2012.
Mr. S.B. DESHMUKH for Petitioner.
Mr. P.J. SHINDE for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Headnote:Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 32-G and 32-F - Initiation of proceedings under Section 32-F.
Initiation of proceedings under Section 32-F of Act, during life time of widow a permanent tenant on land could not have been declared as invalid and could not have been suspended or stayed. - Thus perusal of the relevant provisions do not show that the widow is not entitled to purchase the land of which she is a permanent tenant and in fact by operation of law under Section 32, she also is deemed to have purchased the land on tiller’s day. Only to make welfare provisions more effective, in Section 32-F a further protection has been extended and in case a widow has not exercised such a right, her successor in interest is permitted to exercise it within two years from the date on which her interest in land ceases to exist. It is therefore apparent that the right is to be exercised only once. Here, the S.D.O. has correctly found initiation of proceedings during the life time of the widow could not have been declared as invalid or bad and said proceedings therefore could not have been suspended or stayed. He has therefore correctly ignored earlier order of the Tahasildar dated 13.10.1962. The M.R.T. has failed to appreciate this position and there was no occasion for the petitioner to exercise any right to purchase after the death of a widow in the present facts.
The challenge by the Petitioner in this matter is to the Judgment delivered by the M.R.T. Pune-1 in Revision Application registered as MRT.No.NS.IV.3.911 filed by the Original Respondent no. 1 now represented through his legal heirs. This Court has issued Rule in the matter on 28.5.1995 and stayed further proceedings on 9.2.1996.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The lands at Wai, form the subject matter of this litigation. On 1.4.1957 i.e. the tillor's day a widow by name of Smt Krishnabai was recorded as permanent tenant on these lands owned by one Sakharam Ganu Madhare. Ganpat Krishna Mandhre was recorded as a tenant. On 13.10.1062 proceedings under section 32F were postponed by the Tahsildar and the Agriculture Land Tribunal, Wai as the tenant was a widow. On 30.10.1988 the proceedings under section 32G were disposed of on certain grounds by the very same Authority. This order was set aside by the S.D.O. Mahabaleshwar on 15.11.1989 who directed a fresh inquiry. The fresh inquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar Agriculture Land Tribunal, Wai and vide order dated 28.8.1990 earlier order passed on 30.10.1988 was restored.
3. Against this order Hindurao Ganpati Madhare i.e. the present Petitioner filed an Appeal registered as Appeal No.101 of 1990 before the S.D.O. Mahabaleshwar. After noting all these facts the S.D.O. found that the order of Tahasildar could not have been sustained. He noted that there were no provisions for staying or indefinitely suspending the matters bf deemed purchase in relation to lands in possession of widows and hence order dated 13.10.1962 was void and ignored it. He thereafter noted that on 1.4.1957 Krishnabai was a permanent Agriculturist. He therefore, allowed the Appeal and declared that the lands have been purchased by tenant Ganpati Mandhare through his heirs Hindurao Ganpati Madhare (present Petitioner) on 1.4.1957. The lower Authority was directed to determine the purchase price in accordance with law.
4. The heirs of the land owners challenged this decision in Tenancy Revision mentioned supra before the M.R.T. The M.R.T. found that the original permanent tenant being a widow, tillor's day not postponed and after death of the widow after statutory disability coming to end, it was necessary for tenant Ganpati Mandhare to exercise his right under section 32F of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948. (Hereinafter referred to as Tenancy Act). As those rights were not exercised, the provisions of section 32G were not applicable. The Revision therefore came to be allowed.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this background has urged that the Revisional Authority has fallen into an error in treating section 32F as the only mode in which a tenant can exercise purchase right. Submission is it is a additional mode over and above the provisions of section 32 which confer deemed ownership upon a tenant on tillor's day i.e. l.4.1957. He points out that Krishnabai expired on 22.12.1969 and proceedings instituted and going on during her life time therefore could not have been ignored. It is pointed out that on 1.4.1957 the deceased Krishnabai had become owner and it was not necessary for Ganpati Mandhare to again exercise any option. Support is being taken from the Judgment of this Court reported in 2005 (3) MH.L.J. 1082 : [2005(3) ALL MR 669]. (Bajirao Jaisingrao Ghadage vs Rajaram Yeshwant Chugule) Learned Counsel therefore submits that order of M.R.T, should be quashed and set aside and order of the S.D.O. should be restored.
6. Learned counsel for the landowners (through heirs) has submitted that the provisions of section 32 and 32F cannot be read independently and are not two distinct modes. Support is being taken from the Judgment of Full bench of this Court reported at 1971 (Vol.63) The Bombay Law Reporter 792. (Vishnu Shantaram Desai vs Smt Indira Anant Patkar) It is submitted that M.R.T. has correctly applied law in the light of provisions of section 32F (b). The right of tena
