Shri Balappa Channappa Terdal v. Shri Sidhappa Vyankappa Kaligudi

Bhagwantrao Dafale, resident of Umarani, Taluka Jath, Dist. Sangli names, Dattajirao, Shankarrao, Madhavrao Annasaheb. The i.e. Shankarrao, Madhavrao Annasaheb issueless whereas Dattajirao a Bhagwantrao married Sushilabai. Madhavrao 1940 survived Lalabai. The agricultural admeasuring 20 located Survey No.69 (Gat No.108) village Umarani (Khojanwadi) cultivation Madhavrao demise 1940, Smt. Lalabai became landlady. The Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 brought effect 1/8/1955 consequently cultivation Lalabai State Government. However, Smt. Lalabai 3 occupancy within stipulated period regranted sometimes August

1963. The landlady 3/4/1969 survived by Smt. Yashodabai, the widow of Shankarrao, Bhagwantrao and Annasaheb.

Shri Venkappa Kaligudi was the tenant on the 1/4/1957 (hereinafter referred respondent no.1). The ALT Additional Tahsildar, Jath during

Smt. Lalabai initiated proceedings Section 32G Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands 1948 ("the Tenancy Act" short) Act, proceedings dropped landlady a widow. On demise Smt. Lalabai April 1969 Addl. Tahsildar, Jath started ALT proceedings Section 32G Respondent No.1 tenant. He appeared before ALT 16/6/1971 statement recorded. The ALT a decision sometimes 1971 itself holding occasion proceedings Section 32F(2) tenant complied the provisions of Section 32F(1A) of the Tenancy Act.

The petitioner in Writ petition No.257 of 1990 4 claimed cultivating remaining cultivated respondent no.1 a tenant entire (hereinafter referred petitioner). He further claimed agreement 18/6/1971 entered between respondent no.1 amount Rs.6000/- respondent no.1 purchase portion transaction against proposed purchase entire respondent no.1. In agreement respondent no.1 confirmed petitioner cultivation whereas remaining respondent no.1 cultivation he was tenant respect entire land. The petitioner further claimed Tahsildar, Jath entered Revenue Record 1/10/1983 retrospectively 1971-72 onwards. On contentions petitioner approached ALT, Jath initiate proceedings Section 32G Tenancy Act declaring ownership land. The notices issued parties viz. present respondent no.1 landlords. When application pending Smt. Yashodabai 1984 5 Annasaheb 1980 survived Hirabai. The ALT 12/5/1986 allowed proceedings favour petitioner determined purchase price. The petitioner declared respect payment purchase ownership certificate came to be issued in his favour.

The respondent no.1 approached the Sub Divisional Officer, Miraj Sub Division appeals. Tenancy Appeal No.19 1985 preferred against Tahsildar deciding 32G proceedings against

1971. Whereas Appeal No.16 1986 preferred against 12/5/1986 passed favour petitioner. Both appeals contested Appeal No.19 1985 opposed landlords limitation ground respondent no.1-tenant issued notice required Section 32F(1A) within stipulated period demise Smt. Lalabai and, therefore, entitled purchase remaining land. The SDO pleased to allow both the appeals on 20/8/1986. The orders 6 ALT and Addl. Tahsildar were respondent no.1 declared respect entire land. The purchase directed fixed. The landlords, therefore, Revision Application Nos.36 80 1987 petitioner Revision Application No.29

1987. By a common judgment 27/9/1990 learned Member Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal pleased dismiss revision applications. These petitions against common passed SDO allowing Appeal No.19 of 1985 and Appeal No.16 of 1986 and the said decision being confirmed by the MRT.

It will be necessary to decide the challenge raised petitioner Writ Petition No.257 1990 landlords in Writ Petition Nos.3988 4847 1991, separately implies challenge passed SDO Appeal No.19 of 1985 and Appeal No.16 of 1986 will have to be decided separately. 7 NO.19 OF 1985 APPEAL NO.19 OF 1985 APPEAL NO.19 OF 1985 APPEAL

As Section 32F deals with the right of the tenant purchase agricultural tenancy. sub-section (1)(a) Section 32F landlord a widow, tenant a purchase tenancy Section within expiry period during landlord entitled terminate tenancy Section 31 Tenancy Act. Whereas sub-section (1A) Section 32F states a tenant desirous exercising conferred sub-section (1) intimation behalf landlord Tribunal prescribed manner within period specified sub-section. landlady It a necessary widow, tenant purchase within demise required intimation behalf landlord Tribunal prescribed manner within period demise. In instant Smt. Lalabai 3/4/1969. In statement recorded 16/6/1971 respondent no.1-tenant accepted intimation landlord thereby conveying desire to purchase the land by exercising the right 32 8 conferred sub-section (1) Section 32F, ALT further expressed desire before statement purchase land. The SDO MRT accepted statement sufficient compliance requirements sub-section (1)(a) sub-section (1A) Section 32F allowed Tenancy Appeal No.19 1985 foundation. is, therefore, necessary examine whether ground sustainable law.

16. In the case of a tenant under disability section 32F(1)(b) applies and 10 having regard to the provisions of section 32P it is impossible to hold that the provisions of giving notice and the exercise of right within a period provided therein are merely directory and not mandatory. In case of disability on the part of a tenant, the right must be exercised on the removal of the disability and in the case of a widow by the successors on her ceasing to have interest within one year in the manner provided by sub-section (1)(b) of section 32F of the Act. It is not, therefore, possible to accede to the contention that the provisions should be read as directory and not mandatory. " . In the case of Appa Narsappa Magdum since deceased through LRs. v. Akubai Ganpathi Nimbalkar ors. [ AIR [ AIR [ AIR 1999 1999 1999 SC SC SC 1963 1963 1963 ] ] ] the Apex Court occasion interpret provisions Section 32F of the Tenancy Act. Their Lordships stated thus: "3. ... Section 32-F provides landlord a widow, tenants purchase 11 Section 32 within expiry period during a landlord entitled terminate tenancy Section

31. The landlady 8/12/1965. Her successors-in-interest application termination tenancy within

8.12.1965 interest ceased date. Therefore, tenant exercised Section 32-F before 8/12/1966. Admittedly, appellant comply requirement Section 32-F. The intimation contemplated Section 32-F(1)(a) passed. It was

15.6.1968. It purchase end. "

In the instant case admittedly the Respondent no.1 intimation Section 32F (1A) exercise sub-section (1)(a) Section 32F within period 3/4/1969 i.e. before 3/4/1971. He expressed desire/willingness purchase 12 statement recorded 16/6/1971 statement cannot notice/intimation accepted landlords tenant i.e. respondent no.1 before 3/4/1971. Thus SDO as well MRT errors holding a tenant complied requirement Section 32F(1A) Tenancy Act he was entitled purchase the land under section 32 of the Tenancy Act.

In addition Appeal No.19 of 1985 was filed 14 decision rendered Tahsildar closing proceedings Section 32F ground respondent no.1-tenant intimation mandated Section 32F(1A) Tenancy Act. This 14 considered SDO ground passed Tahsildar impugned appeal date. However, the MRT record intimated 2/7/1971. It required respondent no.1 appeared proceedings statement recorded 16/6/1971. This itself indicated 13 proceedings initiated ALT Section 32G Tenancy Act deciding purchase land. Under circumstances, SDO as well the MRT that Appeal No.19 1985 within respondent no.1- tenant. Thus counts impugned orders passed SDO as well the MRT allowing Appeal No.19 1985 are unsustainable in law and the challenge to the same must, therefore, succeed. APPEAL NO.16 OF 1986 NO.16 OF 1986 APPEAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 1986

The R. & P. available shows that pursuant to passed Tahsildar 1/10/1983 petitioner entered Revenue Record respect agricultural 1971-72 onwards continuously appeared thereafter cultivator portion land. agreement signed between petitioner The respondent no.1 18/6/1971 disputed. The landlords appeared enquiry proceedings initiated ALT statements 14 recorded i.e. statements Mrs. Vijaymala Bhagwantrao Ingole, daughter Bhagwantrao - Sushilabai Bhagwantrao Dafale, Narayanrao Bhagwantrao Dafale Hirabai Annasaheb Dafale clearly stated before ALT petitioner cultivation 1971-72 a well portion cultivation. These statements discarded SDO the MRT solely ground recorded cross-examination. It surprising statement respondent no.1 recorded 16/6/1971 before ALT manner accepted statements the ALT as well the MRT whereas landlords discarded. The record petitioner a notice received ALT appeared before submitted application 29/5/1984 stating possession 1971-72 onwards desirous purchasing same. The SDO the MRT respondent no.1-tenant intimation proceedings culminated favour petitioner. The record findings grossly erroneous. It record 15 respondent no.1 issued a notice received appeared before ALT 30/5/1983, submitted a Vakilpatra 20/5/1983. The original tenant Sidhappa Vyankappa executed a attorney favour Shri Vyankappa 5/4/1983 placed record respondent no.1 thereafter appeared before ALT 3/6/1983, 8/7/1983, 12/8/1983, changed Advocate 31/8/1983 adjournments 31/8/1983, 11/10/1983, 13/1/1984 on. Thus 12/5/1986 challenged Appeal No.16 1986 before SDO ex-parte respondent no.1 concerned. The landlords accepted status petitioner statements discarded authorities erroneously. They challenge petitioner supported passed SDO Appeal No.16/1986, before Court well. Though respondent appeared sought adjournments no.1 before ALT, defence statement opposing application petitioner and, therefore, reason SDO MRT interfere 12/5/1986 passed favour petitioner ALT 16 Addl. Tahsildar. It certificate Section 32M Tenancy Act issued favour petitioner 2/6/1986 a conclusion respect a purchaser land. In premises SDO errors allowing Appeal No.16 1986 MRT failed exercising its revisionary powers to correct the perverse order passed by the SDO.

For the reasons stated hereinabove all the petitions succeed hereby allowed. The impugned orders passed MRT 21/9/1988 Revision Application No.29 1987 27/9/1990 Revision Application Nos.36 1987 20/8/1986 passed 80 SDO hereby quashed consequently Appeal No.19 of 1985 and Appeal No.16 of 1986 are hereby dismissed.

Rule made absolute accordingly with no order costs. Let clarified dismissing Appeal No.19 1985 eviction Respondent No.1 continue cultivate a tenant distinct 17 and separate from the remaining half, the ownership of which has been confirmed on the petitioner.

(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)