Back
1971 Supreme(Gau) 20
Manipur High Court
R. S. BINDRA, J.
Khaidem Tamphajao Singh on his death by his L. Rs. Yumnam Ningol Khaidam Ongbi Padmamukhi Devi
Versus
Hijam Ningol Yumnam Ongbi Leimahal Devi
Second Appeal Case No. 32 of 1969
Decided On : 30-03-1971
R.K. Manisana Singh, for Appellants; N. Budhachandra Singh and N. Kerani Singh, for Respondents.
Section 132 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, gives the tenant a right of pre-emption over the land held by him, and this right can be enforced against the purchaser of the land.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 - Section 132 - Right of pre-emption - Tenant's right to first option to purchase - Interpretation - Mandatory nature of the provision - Penalty under Section 164 not an alternative - Suit for possession by pre-emption - Decree - Rule 14, Order XX, Civil Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a tenant, filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of the land in dispute, claiming that the sale of the land by the defendant landowner to the defendant purchaser was in violation of Section 132 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, which gives the tenant the right of first option to purchase the land.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was the tenant of the defendant landowner on the date of the sale and that the landowner was bound to give notice to the tenant offering to sell the land to him before selling it to someone else. The District Judge, on appeal, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the only penalty for non-compliance with Section 132 is the penalty prescribed in Section 164 of the Act, and that the sale once made cannot be challenged by the tenant.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 132 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, gives the tenant a right of pre-emption over the land held by him. 2. Whether the penalty prescribed in Section 164 of the Act is an alternative to the obligation of the landowner arising out of the right guaranteed to the tenant by Section 132. 3. Whether the tenant can enforce his right of pre-emption against the purchaser of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 132 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, gives the tenant a right of pre-emption over the land held by him. The right of pre-emption is a right which attaches to the property involved and the pre-emptor can consequently enforce his claim against the vendee and compel the latter to make over the possession of the property to him on getting the purchase price. 2. The penalty prescribed in Section 164 of the Act is not an alternative to the obligation of the landowner arising out of the right guaranteed to the tenant by Section 132. The right conferred by Section 132 is for the personal benefit of the tenant, while the penalty mentioned in Section 164 is conceived in the interest of public policy. The right and the penalty provided by the two sections are not mutually exclusive; both can stand side by side. 3. The tenant can enforce his right of pre-emption against the purchaser of the land.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the District Judge, and awarded the plaintiff a decree for possession by pre-emption of the land in dispute on his paying Rs. 1,500/- to the defendant purchaser by 1st June 1971.
2. Y. Chaoyaima Singh, the husband of defendant No. 1 Leimahal Devi, was the owner of the land in dispute and prior to his death he was alleged to have leased out that land to the plaintiff. When the defendant Leimahal Devi acquired ownership of the land on succession to her husband, she allowed Tamphajao Singh to continue as tenant thereof. The plaintiff however learnt on the day of Panchami of 1966, when he went to the land for loutaba, that Leimahal Devi had sold the land on 27-1-1966 for a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the defendant No. 2 W. Ketuki Singh, and since the sale had been made without compliance with the provisions of Section 132 of the Act, the plaintiff filed a suit on 13-4-1966 claiming a declaration that the sale made by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is null and void and that he is entitled to purchase the land in preference to defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, which, he pleaded, represented the true market value of the land, and not Rs. 1,500/- for which the sale was said to have been made by Leimahal Devi to Ketuki Singh.
3. The suit was resisted by the two defendants by a common written statement. They alleged that the plaintiff was not a tenant of Leimahal Devi on the date of the sale of tile suit land but he was in occupation only as Louphat Nekpa, which means a labourer engaged against wages for cultivation of the land. The defendants maintained that the sum of Rs. 1,500/- represented the true market price of the land on the date of its sale.
4. The trial Court decreed the suit on the findings that the plaintiff was the tenant of Leimahal Devi on 27-1-1966, and that in terms of Sec. 132 the land owner (defendant No. 1) was bound to give notice to the tenant (the plaintiff) offering to sell the land to him before he could sell it to someone else.
5. The defendants having felt dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court took the matter in appeal to the Court of District Judge, who, by his judgment dated 4th of August 1969, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs of both the Courts. The appeal was accepted on the footing that the only penalty incurred by the land owner for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 132 (1) of the Act is the one prescribed in Section 164 of the Act and that the sale once made cannot be challenged by the tenant. Section 164 provides that whoever contravenes any provision of the Act for which no penalty has been otherwise provided for therein shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. In other words, in the opinion of the District Judge the land owner can flout the Parliamentary injunction of the nature stated in Section 132 with impunity and that at the worst he incurs the liability to a penalty of Rs. 500/- prescribed in Section 164 of the Act.
6. The plaintiff Tamphajao Singh having been seriously aggrieved by the decree of the District Judge filed the instant second appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
7. Since the fate of the appeal hangs by the interpretation to be placed on section 132 of the Act, it is necessary that that section should be set out in full. It reads :
(1) If a landowner at any time intends to sell his land held by a tenant, he shall give notice in writing of his intention to such tenant and offer to sell the land to him. In case the latter intends to purchase the land, he shall intimate in writing his readiness to do so within two months from the date of receipt of such notice.
(2) If there is any dispute about the reasonable price payable for the land, either the landowner or the tenant may apply in writing to the competent authority for determining the reasonable price; and the competent authority, after giving notice to the other party
