Eviction based solely on non-cultivation must be backed by clear evidence of abandonment; procedural fairness is crucial to protect tenants' rights under welfare laws.

Headnote:(A) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 32P and 32R - Writ petitions challenging eviction orders based on failure of personal cultivation - Tenants’ ownership rights vested as deemed purchasers on Tillers’ Day - Court emphasized the importance of evidence showing complete abandonment of land for eviction - Emphasized the need for a fair inquiry respecting legal rights of vulnerable tenants. (Paras 24, 28, 50, 56, 86)

Facts of the case:
The petitions arise from an order evicting the petitioners from agricultural land on grounds of non-cultivation. The petitioners argued that the order lacked fair procedural adherence and did not consider the tenant's age and illiteracy.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the petitions, ruling that eviction orders were unlawful due to lack of adherence to legal procedure and failure to respect the substantive rights of tenants as established under the Tenancy Act.

Issues: Whether mere non-cultivation without proof of abandonment justifies land resumption; the procedural fairness of the eviction order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled non-cultivation alone cannot justify eviction without clear evidence of abandonment, and that protections offered under the Tenancy Act must be upheld.

Result: Writ petitions allowed, and eviction orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of parties and tenure history (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. petitioners argue against eviction orders and justify their claims. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. analysis of the relevance of personal cultivation in tenancy law. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. justifications for the regulation of ownership under section 32r. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
5. criteria for valid eviction under section 32r. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
6. conditions under which non-cultivation leads to eviction. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
7. procedural fairness in eviction proceedings. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
8. examination of the tenant's statement's legal implications. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
9. delay and procedural correctness in tenancy appeals. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72)
10. conclusion of the judgment and orders. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90)

JUDGMENT:

1. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 21st February 1975 passed by the concerned tenancy authority (“Mamlatdar”) purportedly under Section 32R and 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the Tenancy Act”). By that order, the petitioner – a purchaser of agricultural land – was evicted on the ground of not personally cultivating the land, and the land was directed to be resumed/disposed of. The petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the common judgment and order dated 17th July 2019 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Revision Application Nos. 4 of 2017 and 7 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal allowed the said revision applications preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to 13, and thereby set aside the judgment and order dated 23rd October 2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pune.

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are rooted in a long-standing tenancy and ownership dispute in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.152/1 admeasuring 3 Hectares and 2 Ares, situated at village Bakul, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. The land in question originally belonged to the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.1 to 13.

3. The father of petitioner No.1 was a tenant in possession of the said land as on the tillers’ day, i.e. 1st April 1957. In an enquiry held under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”), the Agricultural Land Tribunal, Haveli, by order dated 22nd June 1964, declared the father of petitioner No.1 as the deemed purchaser of the said land.

4. Pursuant to the said order, the purchase price of the land was determined at Rs.3,960/-. The father of petitioner No.1 deposited the entire purchase price along with interest totalling Rs.4,816.63 within the prescribed time. Upon such compliance, the Agricultural Land Tribunal, by order dated 29th July 1972, issued a certificate under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act, thereby confirming the father of petitioner No.1 as the lawful purchaser of the land.

5. According to the petitioners, it was only in the year 2008, upon obtaining the 7/12 extract of the said land, that petitioner No.1 realised that the name of his father did not appear in the revenue records. Upon further enquiry, the petitioners learnt that proceedings under Section 32P of the Tenancy Act had been initiated against the father of petitioner No.1 and that an order under Section 32P had been passed to resume the land.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of petitioner No.1, being an illiterate person and aged about 82 years in 1975, was not aware of the legal implications of such proceedings. They contend that the said proceedings were conducted behind his back and were vitiated by fraud. Two eviction orders dated 21st February 1975 and 29th April 1975

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1703

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKARSHRI. NITIN SURESH KADAM AND ORS – AppellantVersusSHRI. VITTHAL THAKU JADGALE AND ORS – RespondentIAST/92775/2020

Eviction based solely on non-cultivation must be backed by clear evidence of abandonment; procedural fairness is crucial to protect tenants' rights under welfare laws.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
SHRI. NITIN SURESH KADAM AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. VITTHAL THAKU JADGALE AND ORS – Respondent
IAST/92775/2020