COURT v. Vishwasrao

Judgment

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT:

1. Both these petitions filed by the tenant and landlord respectively impugned

passed Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal 26/8/1985 Revision Application No. 139 of 1983, whereby the said revision was partly allowed. :5:

2. Agricultural lands admeasuring 5 acres and 5 gunthas different survey numbers, namely, Survey Nos.264/2 village Ghunaki Taluka Hatkanangale Kolhapur District Patil Inam granted Shri Vishwasrao Dattajirao Ingale village Ghunaki. Shri Ishwara Sheku Nangare tenant cultivating 1/4/1957 present single Block No.1017-E. As lands, proceedings statutory purchase tenant instituted Inam particularly Section 32G Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for Tenancy Act). However, Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition Office) Act, 1962 enacted Patel Act. Inam abolished Section 3 They resumed State Government 1/1/1963 appointed Section Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition 8 Office) Act, 1962 (for Inam Abolition Act). Sometimes 1975 tenant approached Additional Tahasildar ALT, Hatkanangale application initiate proceedings Section 32G :6: Tenancy Act proceedings dropped land. officer ground re-granted continued Government, though tenant cultivating The tenant, therefore, appeal before Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kolhapur, pleased dismiss appeal 6/3/1978 Revision Application dismissed Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal 22/3/1979. Thus, ALT, Special Land Acquisition Officer Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal concurrently re-granted Inamdar anyone else after it was resumed on 1/1/1963 by the State Government.

3. The tenant claimed that in the year 1980 he knowledge regarding re-grant original Inamdar and, therefore, 3/11/1980 notice grantee respect Survey No.264/2. Prior ALT Suo Motu proceedings initiated Section 32G Tenancy Act a notice 27/3/1980 issued hearing 11/4/1980. These proceedings adjourned State :7: 16/8/1980 tenant’s statement recorded 7 x 12 extracts issued record. The Talathi’s report 4/10/1980 received the ALT and from the said report, for the first time, it was noticed by the ALT that, (a) Survey No.265/2 re-granted landlord 1968 mutation no.7046 effected 26/6/1968, (b) the entire land in Survey No.264 admeasuring 9 acres and 11 gunthas was re-granted to the landlord Inamdar under the Tahasildar’s order dated 7/10/1980. . The Tahasildar, therefore, adjourned the proceedings hearing 20/5/1981 tenant’s statement recorded cross-examined 6/6/1981. The landlord’s statement In recorded cross-examined 23/6/1981. statements, respective parties reiterated re-grant :8: communicated time, landlord admitted statement tenant cultivating along. The landlord, however, denied tenant purchase notice landlord within re-grant. The authorities below, including Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, rejected the claim under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act of the tenant on the following grounds:- (a) The tenancy commenced tiller’s i.e. 1/4/1957 account Act re-grant favour Inamdar consequently Section 32-O Tenancy applicable. (b) The Survey No.265/2 re-granted 1968 within statutory period tenant a notice Inamdar regarding intention purchase approached ALT initiating proceedings Section Tenancy 32G Act. :9: (c) In respect Survey No.264/2, though tenant issued a notice 3/11/1980, signed and, therefore, a notice though landlord admitted received same.

4. In the impugned decision, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal directed a inquiry respect Survey No.264/2 whether notice 3/11/1980 within so, Tahasildar proceed purchase holding necessary proceedings Section 32G Tenancy Act. account order, landlord-Inamdar aggrieved On Writ Petition No.284 1987, whereas second impugned passed Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, orders passed SDO Special Land Acquisition Officer confirmed respect Survey No.265/2 tenant’s purchase Section 32G Tenancy Act dismissed. Obviously, tenant :10: aggrieved has challenged the same in Writ Petition No.1306 of

5. The first question that arises for considerations petitions is, whether Section 32-O of the Tenancy Act comes into operation in the instant case? Section 32-O reads as under:- 32-O. Right tenant tenancy created Tillers’ purchase land.- (1) In respect tenancy created Tills’ a landlord (not a serving member forces) notwithstanding agreement contrary, a tenant cultivating personally entitled within commencement tenancy purchase landlord thereof holding tenant ceiling area. (1A) A tenant desirous exercising :11: conferred sub-section (1) intimation behalf landlord Tribunal prescribed manner within period specified sub-section. (2) The provision sections 32 32N (both inclusive) sections 32P, 32Q 32R sub-section applicable purchase a tenant (1). . It is obvious that if the tenancy is created tillers’ a landlord notwithstanding agreement contrary, a tenant cultivating personally entitled within commencement tenancy purchase landlord thereof holding tenant ceiling a exercised giving intimation behalf landlord Tribunal prescribed manner within period Section 32 year. Finally provisions 32N (both inclusive) Sections :12: 32P, 32Q 32R applicable purchase a tenant sub-section (1). The findings recorded Tribunals tenancy instant created tillers’ i.e. 1/4/1957 grossly erroneous obviously without application provisions Sections 5, 6 8 Watan Abolition Acts. Section 5 re-grant Watandar, whereas Section 6 provides re-grant authorised holder. Section 8 Abolition Acts which is relevant for the present considerations reads as under:-

8. Application existing tenancy law.- If day, lawfully leased subsisting appointed provisions relevant tenancy lease, rights liabilities holder tenant tenants shall, subject provisions part, governed provisions law: :13: . Provided that, purposes application provisions relevant tenancy regard compulsory purchase a tenant, deemed commenced re-grant Section 5 9, be.

6. In the instant case the appointed day is admittedly 1/1/1963 tenant lawful cultivation subsisting. The provisions Tenancy Act were, therefore, applicable decide rights liabilities tenant Act. The re-granted 1968 second

1980. portion re-granted October, The was, therefore, deemed commenced re-grant purpose applications provisions Tenancy Act. This re-grant tenant entitled application Section 32G Tenancy Act purchase :14: notice landlord/Inamdar. The scheme Section 8 Abolition Acts recommence re-granted Inamdar State Government amply made clear by the following decisions of this Court:- (a) Kallawwa Shattu Patil ors. vs. Yallappa Parashram Patil anr. Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. (1992 (1992 (1992 34). 34) 34) (b) Pradeeprao @ Virgonda Shivgond Patil vs. Sidappa Girappa Hemgire through (2004 (2004 (2004 (3) (3) (3) Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. 75) 75) 75) . A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Pandurang Dnyanoba Lad vs. Dada Rama Methe ors. (AIR (AIR (AIR 1976 1976 1976 SC SC SC 1910) 1910) 1910) considered applicability Section 32-O Tenancy Act re-grant of the land under the Alienations Abolition Act and in para 6 it observed as under:- "Section 32-O Tenancy Act applies tenancies created tillers’ day. :15: provides respect tenancies, It a tenant desirous exercising purchase intimation landlord Tribunal within commencement tenancy. As observed us, relationship landlord tenant between appellants respondents introduction Alienations Abolition indeed Act justification theory cesser relationship a relationship landlord tenant existence between parties attract application Section 32-O......"

7. This observation is equally applicable in the instant scheme Section 8 Abolition Act indicate a tenancy created re-grant Inamdar holder. In Smt. Khatun anr. vs. Balakrishna Keshav Deshpande (AIR(AIR(AIR 1992 1992 1992 SC SC SC 2197), 2197) 2197) referring scheme Section 28 Bombay Merged Territories :16: Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1945, Supreme Court stated confer retrospective landholder arrears re-grant passed favour landholder Section 7 Abolition Act. There automatic resumption landholder a June, 1955 (appointed day) entitled favour tenant re-grant passed landholder. The applicability 3rd longer Section 32-O Tenancy Act elaborately considered by this court in Kallawwa Patil’s case in the following words:- "The watan land was lawfully leased by the landlords, i.e. the petitioners and Respondent No.2, in favour of the 1st Respondent-tenant much prior to 1st April 1957 and the said lease was subsisting on the appointed day. The 1st Respondent was lawfully cultivating the land bearing R.S. No.182/4 throughout. Practically all the :17: provisions of the Tenancy Act became applicable to the lease forthwith. Merely the date of compulsory purchase and fixation of purchase price were postponed by statute, i.e. by operation of law upto the date of re-grant. In other words, the provisions for implementation of compulsory purchase of the land contained in section 32G of the Tenancy Act could not be availed of by the Respondent No.1 until the date of re-grant of the said land. In my judgment, the landlords did not create any fresh tenancy in favour of Respondent No.1 after 1st April 1957 and section 32-O of the Tenancy Act can have no application to such a case. Section 32-O of the Tenancy Act cannot apply to a case where the land was already leased by the landlords in favour of the tenant prior to 1st April 1957 and the said lease was subsisting on 1st April 1957 and it has subsisted throughout. The proviso to section 8 of the Patels Abolition Act creates a statutory legal fiction for an extremely limited purpose, i.e. for the purpose of fixing of purchase price in :18: respect of statutory purchase. For the said limited purpose, the land is deemed to have been leased from the date of re-grant. It does not follow therefrom that the landlords have created a lease in respect of the said land after 1st April 1957 from the re-grant. The old lease never came to an end. New contract of lease was never arrived at. Deemed date of commencement of pre-existing lease for the limited purpose set out in the proviso to section 8 of the Patels Abolition Act does not and cannot bring the case within the ambit of section 32-O of the Tenancy Act. The condition precedent prescribed by section 32-O of the Tenancy Act for its applicability is not satisfied in this case......" . The above said observations made by this court Kallawwa Patil squarely applicable and, therefore, authorities concurrently Section 32-O Tenancy Act attracted unsustainable contrary :19: Apex Court Pandurang (Supra). The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal referred Lad another decision Bandu Dhanjai Ahire vs. Chatursing P. Thoke ( ( ( 1973 1973 1973 TLR TLR TLR Vol.XXI Vol.XXI Vol.XXI - - - 154) 154) 154) unfortunately failed judgment instant case. In fact, wrongly interpreted judgment followed requirements therein fulfilled instant case. In "a deemed commenced re-grant Section 5,6 9, be" interpreted "from communication re-grant merely to the Inamdar but also to the tenants of the land".

8. Both the tenant as well as the Inamdar in the instant stated statements recorded Tahasildar received re-grant same. Even Tahasildar anything record re-grant communicated either either 1968 1980 and, :20: therefore, period applicable instant giving notice landlord initiating proceedings Section 32G Tenancy Act. This Bandu Ahire’s re-grant communicated tenant, tenant tenancy commenced re-grant proviso Section 8 Inam Abolition Act. By following judgment necessary Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal hold, fact, favour tenant regards receipt 7x12 extract tenant i.e. 25/8/1980, proceedings Section 32G either barred tenant forfeited statutory purchase land. From record, safely concluded tenant knowledge re-grant received notice ALT copies 7x12 extract re-granted

1968. Under circumstances, authorises respect Survey No.265/2 patently :21: erroneous deserves quashed aside. It necessary Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal remand inquiry respect Survey No.264/2. The record provisions Section 32-O Tenancy Act applicable instant case, necessary purchase investigation regarding notice issued tenant necessary. The Tribunal directed to fix the purchase price in respect of the land in Survey No.264/2.

9. In the premises, Writ Petition No.1306 of 1986 succeeds Writ Petition No.284 1987 fails. It directed Tahasildar ALT, Hatkanangale purchase admeasuring 5 5 gunthas presently Block No.1017-E hearing parties within a period months tenant comply requirements paying purchase within period prescribed. The Certificate Section 32M follow remittance purchase price. Consequently, impugned passed Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal hereby quashed :22: Rule in Writ Petition No.1306 1986 absolute directions, whereas Rule granted Writ Petition No.284 1987 is hereby discharged. Parties to bear their own costs. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)