Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
THE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11774 OF 2018
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D)
BY LRS. & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (DEAD)
THRU LRS. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11775-11798 OF 2018
SHRI ARJUN HARI
KAMBLE AND ETC. ETC. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (DEAD)
THRU LRS. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
These appeals have been filed against the common
judgment dated 01.08.2014 of High Court of Bombay
dismissing a bunch of writ petitions including those
filed by the present appellants.
1
2. It shall be sufficient to notice the facts in
Civil Appeal filed by Vasant Ganpat Padave for
deciding these appeals.
3. One Balwant Sawant was landlord of Survey
No.92/2, corresponding to new Survey No. 31 Hissa
No.2/10, admeasuring about 0.01.3 H.R. at Village
Padavewadi, Taluka & District Ratnagiri. Balwant
Sawant died on 10.05.1950 leaving behind Smt.
Indirabai Balwant Sawant, his widow as his legal heir
and representative. Smt. Indirabai Balwant Sawant,
widow became the owner of the said property. Her
name was mutated in the Revenue Records. Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was amended
by Act 15 of 1957. Section 32 as amended provided
that on 01.04.1957 (Tillers Day), every tenant shall
be deemed to have purchased from the landlord free
from all encumbrances the land held by him as a
tenant. The predecessor of the appellants were
tenants prior to 1956-1957, i.e. prior to 01.04.1957.
The proceedings for declaring the appellants as
purchaser under Section 32G were initiated during the
lifetime of the landlady, Smt. Indirabai Balwant
2
Sawant but the mutation entry No. 1341 recorded that
since landlady Indirabai Balwant Sawant is a widow,
the proceedings as contemplated under Section 32G are
suspended. On 12.05.1975, Smt. Indirabai Balwant
Sawant executed last Will and Testament in favour of
Anant Mahadev Sawant, respondent No.1. Smt. Indirabai
Balwant Sawant died on 07.05.1999. The name of
respondent No.1 was mutated in the Revenue Records on
29.02.2000, with regard to which no notice was issued
to the appellants, hence they were not aware of
either the death of Indirabai or mutation in favour
of respondent No. 1.
4. In the year 2008, when the appellants came to
know that landlady has died and in her place name of
respondent No.1 has been mutated, they filed an
application on 05.09.2008 before respondent No.2 -
Additional Tahsiladar & A.L.T. Ratnagiri, Maharashtra
for fixing the purchase price under Section 32G of
the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948 (hereinafter referred to as “1948 Act”). The
respondent No.1 filed reply and opposed the said
application. The respondent No.2 allowed the
3
application of appellants by order dated 09.09.2011.
The respondent No.2 held that predecessors of
appellants were tenants prior to 1956-1957.
Proceedings under Section 32G for declaring the
appellants as purchasers were initiated during the
lifetime of the landlady and the same were suspended
on 08.01.1964 during the lifetime of the landlady
being a widow. Respondent No.2 fixed the purchase
price and directed the appellants to deposit the same
to enable issue of Sale Certificate in favour of the
appellants. Aggrieved against the order dated
09.09.2011, the respondent No.1 filed an appeal under
Section 74 of the 1948 Act before the respondent
No.3- Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.
The respondent No.3 allowed the appeal vide its order
dated 08.01.2013. The respondent No.3 held that the
appellant ought to have issued notice under Section
32F within the time as prescribed and no notice
having been issued within the time as prescribed, the
appellants have lost right of purchase.
5. The appellants aggrieved by the order of the Sub-
Divisional Officer filed a Revision Application
4
before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. There were
other revisions filed by several other tenants who
were aggrieved by the order of Sub-Divisional
Officer. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by a
common order dated 20.04.2013 dismissed the revisions
and confirmed the order of Sub-Divisional Officer.
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that applicants
were under legal obligation to give intimation
expressing their desire to purchase within time
stipulated under Section 32F, which having not been
given, no right of purchase is available to
applicants. Aggrieved against the judgment of
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, writ petitions were
filed by the appellants and several other similarly
situated tenants. All the writ petitions were
dismissed by common judgment dated 01.08.2014 of the
High Court, against which judgment, these appeals
have been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging
the impugned order submits that by operation of law,
i.e. by Section 32 as amended by Act 15 of 1957, all
tenants were deemed to have purchased from their
5
landlord the land held by them but in case of
appellants, the said purchase was suspended since on
the Tillers Day, the landlady was a widow, who had
protection under Section 31(3) and with regard to
whom the purchase was suspended. It is submitted
that the landlady or her legal heirs having never
given any notice for termination of tenancy under
Section 31(3), after expiry of period as mentioned in
Section 31(3), appellants shall be treated to have
purchased the land in his tenancy. It is submitted
that under Section 32F, notice of intention
to purchase the land under tenancy was given by the
appellants as soon as they came to know about the
death of the landlady. No notice having been
given by the legal heirs of the landlady informing
about her death or any intention to terminate the
tenancy, the appellants could exercise their right of
purchase only when they came to know about the death,
i.e. in the year 2008. It is submitted that for
enabling the appellants, who were tenants, to
exercise the right of purchase, the notice by legal
heirs was necessary. When no notice was issued by
6
the respondent No.1., i.e., legal heir of the
landlady that he has succeeded to tenancy, no cause
of action arose for appellants to exercise right of
purchase, thus the right of purchase shall not be
defeated due to the above reason. It is submitted
that right of deemed purchase on the Tillers Day is
only suspended in the case of landlady, who was widow
and after her death, the right of purchase shall be
revived in favour of the tenant and Courts below
committed error in rejecting the application filed by
the appellants for purchase. Learned counsel for the
appellants has further submitted that appellant being
permanent tenants, provisions of Section 31 were not
attracted, hence, there was no period of limitation
for purchase by the tenants.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the
submissions of the appellants contends that the
appellants having not exercised their right of
purchase within the time stipulated under Section
32F, the right given under Section 32F, i.e., right
of purchase of the tenant is lost and no error has
7
been committed by the Courts below in rejecting the
application filed by the appellants for purchase of
the land. He submits that death of the landlady
having occurred on 07.05.1999, appellants cannot be
permitted to move an application for purchase in 2008
on the ground that they were not aware of the death
of the landlady. The period for exercising the right
of purchase is statutorily fixed, which cannot be
extended by anyone. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the issues raised by the
appellant are fully covered by the judgment of this
Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. Vs.
Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar and Others, (1999) 4 SCC
443 .
8. Learned counsel for the parties in support of
their respective submissions has relied on various
judgments of this Court, which shall be referred to
while considering the submissions in detail.
9. Before we proceed to consider the respective
submissions of the parties, it is necessary to look
into the Statutory Scheme of the 1948 Act. The 1948
Act was enacted to amend the law relating to tenancy
8
of agricultural lands and to make certain other
provisions relating to those lands. Chapter III of
the Act deals with “Special Rights and Privileges of
Tenants and Provisions for Distribution of Land for
Personal Cultivation”. Section 31 of the Act
provides for Landlord’s right to terminate tenancy
for personal cultivation and non-agricultural
purpose. Section 31 of the Act is as follows:-
31. Landlord’s right to terminate tenancy
for personal cultivation and non-
agricultural purpose. (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in sections 14 and 30
but subject to sections 31A to 31D (both
inclusive), a [landlord (not being a
landlord within the meaning of Chapter III-
AA) may], after giving notice and making an
application for possession as provided in
sub-section (2), terminate the tenancy of
any land (except a permanent tenancy), if
the landlord bona-fide requires the land
for any of the following purposes:––
(a) for cultivating personally, or
(b) for any non-agricultural purpose.
(2) The notice required to be given under
sub-section (1) shall be in writing, shall
state the purpose for which the landlord
requires the land and shall be served on
the tenant on or before the 31st day of
December 1956. A copy of such notice shall,
at the same time, be sent to the Mamlatdar.
An application for possession under section
29 shall be made to the Mamlatdar on or
before the 31st day of March 1957.
9
(3) Where a landlord is a minor, or a
widow, or a person subject to mental or
physical disability then such notice may be
given [and an application for possession
under section 29 may be made,]––
(i) by the minor within one year from
the date on which he attains majority;
(ii) by the successor-in-title of a
widow within one year from the date on
which her interest in the land ceases to
exist;
(iii) within one year from the date on
which mental or physical disability
ceases to exist; and
(iv)
[Provided that where a person of such
category is a member of a joint family, the
provisions of this sub-section shall not
apply if at least one member of the joint
family is outside the categories mentioned
st
in the sub-section unless before the 31
day of March 1958 the share of such person
in the joint family has been separated by
metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on
inquiry is satisfied that the share of such
person in the land is separated, having
regard to the area, assessment,
classification and value of the land, in
the same proportion as the share of that
person in the entire joint family property,
and not in a large proportion].
10. Section 31A enumerate the conditions of
termination of tenancy. Section 32 of the 1948 Act
10
was comprehensively amended by Act No. 15 of 1957.
Various measures of agrarian reform under which
tillers of the soil were made the owners of the land,
was introduced in the Act by Act No. 15 of 1957.
This Court in Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Others Vs.
Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Another (1983) 3 SCC
437 noticed the object of amendment Act No. 15 of
1957 in following words:-
“6. The Tenancy Act was comprehensively
amended by Amending Act 15 of 1957. The
amendment brought in a revolutionary
measure of agrarian reforms making tiller
of the soil the owner of the land. This was
done to achieve the object of removing all
intermediaries between tillers of the soil
and the State. Section 32 provides that by
mere operation of law, every tenant of
agricultural land situated in the area to
which the Act applies shall become by the
operation of law, the owner thereof. He is
declared to be a deemed purchaser without
anything more on his part. A Constitution
Bench of this court in Sri Ram Ram Narain
Medhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459
held that:
“The title of the landlord to the
land passes immediately to the tenant
on the tillers’ day and there is a
completed purchase or sale thereof as
between the landlord and the tenant.
The title of the land which was
vested originally in the landlord
passes to the tenant on the tillers’
day and this title is defeasible only
11
in the event of the tenant failing to
appear or making a statement that he
is not willing to purchase the land
or commit default in payment of the
price thereto as determined by the
Tribunal.”
Therefore, it is unquestionably
established that on the tillers’ day, the
landlord’s interest in the land gets
extinguished and simultaneously by a
statutory sale without anything more by the
parties, the extinguished title of the
landlord is kindled or created in the
tenant. That very moment landlord-tenant
relationship as understood in common law or
Transfer of Property Act comes to an end.
The link and chain is broken. The absent
non-cultivating landlord ceases to have
that ownership element of the land and the
cultivating tenant, the tiller of the soil
becomes the owner thereof. This is
unquestionable. The landlord from the date
of statutory sale is only entitled to
receive the purchase price as determined by
the Tribunal under Section 32-G. In other
words, the landlord ceases to be landlord
and the tenant becomes the owner of the
land and comes in direct contact with the
State. Without any act of transfer inter
vivos the title of the landlord is
extinguished and is created simultaneously
in the tenant making the tenant the deemed
purchaser. It is an admitted position that
on April 1, 1957 Tarachand was the landlord
and Janardhan was the tenant. Tarachand
landlord was under no disability as
envisged by Section 32-F. Therefore on
April 1, 1957 Janardhan became deemed
purchaser and Mr Lalit could not controvert
this position.”
12
11. Section 32 as amended by Act No. 15 of 1957
st
provided that on the day of 1 April, 1957 (Tillers
Day), tenants shall be deemed to have purchased from
their landlord, free of all encumbrances subsisting
thereon on the said day, the land held by them as
tenant. Section 32(1), which is relevant for the
present case is as follows:-
“ 32. Tenants deemed to have purchased land
on tillers’ day.- [(1)] On the first day of
April 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the
tillers’ day”) every tenant shall, [subject
to the other provisions of this section and
the provisions of] the next succeeding
sections, be deemed to have purchased from
his landlord, free of all encumbrances
subsisting thereon on the said day, the
land held by him as tenant, if––
(a) such tenant is a permanent tenant
thereof and cultivates land
personally;
(b) such tenant is not a permanent
tenant but cultivates the land leased
personally; and
(i) the landlord has not given
notice of termination of his
tenancy under section 31; or
(ii) notice has been given under
section 31, but the landlord has
not applied to the Mamlatdar on or
st
before the 31 day of March 1957
under section 29 for obtaining
possession of the land; [or]
13
[(iii) the landlord has not
terminated his tenancy on any of
the grounds specified in section
14, or has so terminated the
tenancy but has not applied to the
st
Mamlatdar on or before the 31 day
of March 1957 under section 29 for
obtaining possession of the
lands] :
… … … …”
12. Section 32F, which is relevant in the present
case is as follows:-
“ 32F. Right of tenant to purchase where
landlord is minor, etc.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
preceding sections,––
(a) where the landlord is a minor, or a
widow, or a person subject to any mental or
physical disability, the tenant shall have
the right to purchase such land under
section 32 within one year from the expiry
of the period during which such landlord is
entitled to terminate the tenancy under
section 31 [and for enabling the tenant to
exercise the right of purchase, the
landlord shall send an intimation to the
tenant of the fact that he has attained
majority, before the expiry of the period
during which such landlord is entitled to
terminate the tenancy under section 31] :
[Provided that where a person of such
category is a member of a joint family, the
provisions of this sub-section shall not
apply if at least one member of the joint
family is outside the categories mentioned
st
in this sub-section unless before the 31
day of March 1958 the share of such person
in the joint family has been separated by
metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on
inquiry is satisfied that the share of such
14
person in the land is separated, having
regard to the area, assessment,
classification and value of the land, in
the same proportion as the share of that
person in the entire joint family property
and not in a larger proportion].
(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[(1A) A tenant desirous of exercising
the right conferred on him under sub-
section (1) shall give an intimation in
that behalf to the landlord and the
Tribunal in the prescribed manner within
the period specified in that sub-section] :
[Provided that, if a tenant holding land
from a landlord (who was a minor and has
attained majority before the commencement
of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1969) has not given
intimation as required by this sub-section
but being in possession of the land on such
commencement is desirous of exercising the
right conferred upon him under sub-section
(1), he may give such intimation within a
period of two years from the commencement
of that Act].
(2) The provisions of sections 32 to 32E
(both inclusive) and sections 32G to 32R
(both inclusive) shall, so far as may be
applicable, apply to such purchase.
13. The facts of the present case as noticed above
indicate that although predecessor-in-interest of the
appellants were tenants of the land in question since
before 01.04.1957 but on the relevant day, i.e. the
15
Tillers Day, the land was held by Smt. Indirabai
Balwant Sawant, who was widow, hence the deemed
purchase as contemplated by Section 32 stood
suspended by virtue of Section 31(3). Section 31
enumerates landlord’s right to terminate tenancy for
personal cultivation and non-agricultural purpose.
In case of a minor or a widow or a person subject to
mental or physical disability, by virtue of Section
31(3), an application for termination of tenancy and
application for possession can be made by the minor
on the date on which he attains majority and by the
successor-in-title of a widow within one year from
the date on which her interest in the land ceases to
exist. Widow, Smt. Indirabai Balwant Sawant
having died on 07.05.1999, her interest ceased on
07.05.1999, which by virtue of Will was successed by
respondent No.1. Thus, by virtue of Section 31(3)
(ii), the respondent No.1 had a right to give notice
of termination of tenancy and application for
possession within one year from 07.05.1999. From the
facts of the present case it is apparent from the
record that neither any notice was given by the widow
16
in her lifetime for termination of tenancy nor her
successor-in-title, i.e. respondent No.1 gave any
notice under Section 31 for termination of tenancy
within one year from 07.05.1999 and it was on
05.09.2008, the appellants made an application under
Section 32F for purchase of land. The Sub-
Divisional Officer, Revenue Tribunal as well as the
High Court rejected the claim of the appellant only
on the ground that appellants, i.e. tenants failed to
exercise their right of purchase within the period as
prescribed under Section 32F(1), they held that the
appellant had a right of purchase under Section 32
within one year from the expiry of the period during
which successor-in-interest of landlady was entitled
to terminate the tenancy under Section 31. The
tenants having not exercised their right of purchase
within two years from 07.05.1999, the right of
purchase of the appellants has been lost.
14. This Court had occasion to consider the
provisions of Sections 31, 32 and 32F of the 1948 Act
in large number of cases. It is useful to notice few
of such cases, which are relevant for deciding the
17
issues raised in these appeals. In Amrit Bhikaji
Kale (supra) , this Court held that Section 32F
postponed the date of compulsory purchase by the
tenant where the landlord is a minor or a widow. In
paragraph No.8, following has been laid down:-
“8. It may be mentioned that Section 32-F
has no application to the facts of this
case. Section 32-F postponed the date of
compulsory purchase by the tenant where the
landlord is a minor or a widow or a person
subject to mental or physical disability on
the tillers’ day. Section 32-F has an
overriding effect over Section 32 as it
opens with a non-obstante clause. The
combined effect of Sections 32-F and 32
would show that where the landlord is under
no disability as envisaged by Section 32-F
the tenant of such landlord by operation of
law would become the deemed purchaser but
where the landlord is of a class or
category as set out in Section 32-F such as
a minor, a widow or a person subject to any
mental or physical disability, the date of
compulsory sale would be postponed as
therein provided. Now, if Tarachand, the
landlord was under no disability and he was
alive on April 1, 1957 and he was the
owner, his tenant Janardhan became the
deemed purchaser. This conclusion, in our
opinion, is unassailable.”
15. In Anna Bhau Magdum, since deceased by His Legal
Representatives Vs. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai, (1995)
5 SCC 243 , this Court had occasion to consider
18
Section 32F(1A) of 1948 Act. In the above case,
original owner by gift deed dated 04.09.1953 gifted
the land to respondent, who was a minor and who
attained the majority on 17.01.1965. The proceedings
under Section 32-G of the Act were started in respect
of the said land in the year 1960, but in view of the
fact that the landlord was a minor, the said
proceedings were dropped. Fresh proceedings were
initiated in the year 1975 under Section 32-G before
the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands
Tribunal. Additional Tehsildar passed an order
holding that the tenant has lost his right to
purchase the land and declared that the purchase of
land by the tenant has become ineffective. On
remand, the Tehsildar again held that tenant could
exercise his right of purchase by sending an
intimation upto 17.01.1967 and since the tenant had
failed to send such an intimation, his right of
purchase is forfeited. It was also held that by the
amendment incorporated in Section 32F(1A) by
Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969, a further opportunity was
given to the tenant to exercise his right of purchase
19
by sending the intimation upto 17.10.1971 and that
even during this period of extension the tenant did
not avail of the opportunity. An appeal and the
revision filed by the tenant was dismissed. Writ
petition filed by the tenant was also dismissed
against which the appeal was filed. In Paragraph
Nos. 10, 12 and 13, following was held by this
Court:-
“10. In the present case it is not disputed
that the tenant did not send any intimation
as required by sub-section (1)( a ) either up
to 17-1-1967 or even up to 17-10-1971 as
provided by the proviso under sub-section
(1-A) of Section 32-F. Moreover, the tenant
in his statement given on 25-8-1960 before
the Agricultural Lands Tribunal stated that
he was aware that the respondent-landlord
would be attaining majority on 17-1-1965.
Thus there was non-compliance on the part
of the tenant with the provisions of sub-
section (1-A) of Section 32-F of the Act
and on that basis it has been held that the
tenant could not avail the right of
purchase conferred under Section 32 read
with Section 32-F of the Act.
12. It cannot, therefore, be said that
there is an automatic purchase of the land
by the tenant in a case where the landlord
happens to be a minor or a widow or a
person subject to any mental or physical
disability as mentioned in Section 32-F. In
such a case the right of purchase conferred
on the tenant can be effective only if it
20
is exercised in accordance with the
provisions of Section 32-F.
13. ………………We are, therefore, of the opinion
that requirement regarding intimation by
the tenant to the landlord prescribed under
sub-section (1-A) of Section 32-F is
mandatory in nature and the failure on the
part of the tenant in the present case to
give such an intimation to the landlord
within the prescribed period has resulted
in the tenant having failed to avail the
right to purchase conferred on him and it
has been rightly held that the tenant
having failed to exercise the right to
purchase conferred on him by the Act was
liable to summary eviction under Section
32-P(1) of the Act.”
16. Again in Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS.
vs. Akubai Ganpati Nimbalkar & others, (1994) 4 SCC
443 , this Court had occasion to examine Section 32F
and Section 31 of the Act. The facts of the case as
noticed in paragraph No.2 are as follows:-
“2. As landlady Shevantibai was a widow,
the deemed date of statutory purchase by
the appellant-tenant was postponed. It is
not in dispute that his right to purchase
the land was for that reason governed by
the provisions of Section 32-F of the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948. Shevantibai died on 8-12-1965. The
appellant thereafter on 15-6-1968 gave an
intimation to the heirs of Shevantibai that
he was interested in purchasing the land
under Section 32-F of the Act. On 9-7-1968,
the legal representatives of Shevantibai
applied under Section 32-P of the Act for a
21
declaration that as the tenant had not
complied with the requirements of Section
32-F the sale has become ineffective and
therefore the possession of land may be
restored to them as their holding was less
than the ceiling area. The Tehsildar
granted that application. Aggrieved by that
order, the appellant filed an appeal to the
Sub-Divisional Officer who allowed it and
remanded the case for deciding it under
Section 32-G of the Act. Therefore, the
heirs of Shevantibai filed a revision
petition before the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal and contended that since the
tenant had failed to exercise his right
under Section 32-F within the stipulated
period, the purchase had become ineffective
and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer
was in error in allowing the appeal and
sending the matter back to the Tehsildar
for deciding the same under Section 32-G.
The Tribunal accepted this contention and
allowed the revision application and
restored the order passed by the Tehsildar.
The High Court in the writ petition filed
by the appellant confirmed the order passed
by the Tribunal.”
17. The submission on behalf of the appellants that
heirs of the landlady had not given any intimation to
the appellants about her death and therefore they
could not have known who are the heirs of the
landlady and give intimation to them was rejected.
The submission that the period of one year should be
counted from the date of the knowledge of the tenants
22
was also not accepted. In Paragraph No. 4, following
has been laid down:-
“4. It was submitted by the learned counsel
that this being a welfare legislation
enacted for the benefit of tenants should
be construed in a liberal manner. He also
submitted that the heirs of the landlady
had not given any intimation to the
appellant about her death and therefore he
could not have known who were the heirs of
the landlady and given intimation to them.
He submitted that the period of one year
should be counted from the date of the
knowledge of the tenant. We cannot accept
this submission because the language of
Sections 32-F and 31 is quite clear and the
period of one year will have to be counted
in accordance with the said provisions and
not from the date of the knowledge of the
tenant. The provision of law being clear,
we cannot in such a case grant relief on
the basis of equity.”
18. Sudam Ganpat Kutwal, Power-of-Attorney-Holder of
Shankar Sitaram Bhosle Vs. Shevantabai Tukaram
Gulumkar (Dead) by LR. Maruti Shankar Pachpute,
(2006) 7 SCC 200 was a case where provisions of 1948
Act especially Sections 31 and 32F were elaborately
considered. The appellant was inducted as tenant of
agricultural land in the year 1954 and was
cultivating the land personally. The landlord filed
an application under Section 31 read with Section 29
23
in the year 1958. An order was made directing that
possession of half of the land should be delivered to
the landlord for her bonafide personal cultivation.
Landlord filed another case in the year 1964 seeking
possession of the remaining half of the land on the
ground that the appellant had committed certain
defaults. The petition was rejected. The landlord
died on 23.03.1975, and thereafter her successor-in-
title’s name was entered in the record-of-rights.
Successor-in-title filed an application under Section
32P read with Section 32F for a declaration that the
deemed statutory purchase by the tenant be declared
as void and ineffective, as the tenant had failed to
fulfil the mandatory requirement of giving a notice
of intimation of purchase within the time stipulated
under Section 32F(1A). Agricultural Land Tribunal
accepted the contention of successor-in-title holding
that tenant had failed to issue a notice of purchase.
The appellant had filed a writ petition aggrieved
with the order of Agricultural Land Tribunal, which
writ petition was dismissed. The issue, which was
24
considered by this Court has been noticed in
Paragraph No. 14 to the following effect:-
“14. The dispute in this appeal relates to
the question as to whether it was necessary
for the tenant to issue a notice of
intimation of purchase under Section 32-F
(1-A) of the Act to the successor-in-title
of Anusuyabai in regard to the half portion
retained by him under Section 31-B(1) read
with Section 31(1) of the Act and whether
the failure to do so resulted in forfeiture
of the tenant’s right to the said land or
right to purchase the said land under the
Act.”
19. After noticing various provisions of the Act,
this Court in Paragraph No. 23 of the judgment
recorded its conclusions, which is to the following
effect:-
“23. The position as disclosed by a
combined and harmonious reading of Sections
31, 32, 32-F and 32-G may be stated thus:
( a ) Where the landlord has not served on
the tenant, a notice of termination [as
stated in clause ( b ) of sub-section (1) of
Section 32], the tenant is deemed to have
purchased the land on the tillers’ day (1-
4-1957);
( b ) Where the tenant is deemed to have
purchased the land on the tillers’ day (1-
4-1957), the Lands Tribunal is required to
issue notice and determine the price of
land to be paid by the tenant. Where there
is a deemed purchase, but the right to
25
purchase is postponed, the Land Tribunal
shall determine the price of land, as soon
as may be after the postponed date.
( c ) A landlord had a right to give notice
and make an application for possession
after terminating the tenancy, if he wanted
the land bona fide for personal
cultivation, provided the notice was served
on the tenant on or before 31-12-1956 (with
copy to the Mamlatdar) and application for
possession under Section 29 was filed on or
before 31-3-1957.
( d ) A landlord widow is also entitled to
make an application for possession under
sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act.
Sub-section (3) of Section 31 which is an
enabling provision, extends the time within
which the widow can seek possession under
Section 31(1) of the Act, beyond 31-12-
1956. As a result, where the landlord is a
widow, then the notice required under sub-
section (1) of Section 31 may be given and
the application for possession under
Section 29 may be made by her so long as
her interest in the land exists. Such
notice can also be given by the successor-
in-title of the widow within one year from
the date on which the interest of the widow
in the land ceases to exist.
( e ) Where the landlord is a widow [and she
does not exercise her right under Section
31(1) of the Act], the right to purchase
under the deemed purchase is postponed till
the expiry of the period during which such
(disabled) landlord is entitled to
terminate the tenancy under Section 31(3).
The tenant desirous of exercising such
right shall, however, give an intimation in
that behalf to the landlord and the
Tribunal within one year thereafter, as
required under Section 32-F(1-A).
26
Consequently, where the landlord, being a
widow as on 1-4-1957, does not choose to
terminate the tenancy for personal
cultivation, the tenancy continues during
her lifetime and on the death of the widow,
her successor-in-title will have the right
to terminate the tenancy within one year
from the date of death of the widow. The
tenant shall have the right to purchase
such land, under Section 32, within one
year from the expiry of the period during
which such successor-in-title of the widow
is given the right to terminate the tenancy
under Section 31(3) by giving an intimation
as required under Section 32-F(1-A).
( f ) Where a landlord, who is a widow,
exercises her right of termination and
secures possession of part of the tenanted
land for personal cultivation under Section
31(1) of the Act, then there is no question
of her successor-in-title giving a notice
of termination within one year from the
date on which the widow’s interest ceases
to exist. When Section 31(3) ceases to
apply, Section 32-F also will not apply and
there is no need for the tenant to give any
intimation under Section 32-F(1-A).
( g ) On an order for possession being made
in favour of a widow landlord in regard to
land up to 50% of the tenanted land under
Section 31(1) read with Section 31-B(1),
the widow will get possession of such land
and the tenant continues in possession in
regard to the remaining land. In regard to
the land remaining with the tenant, rent
has to be fixed under Section 31-D, until
the purchase price is determined under
Section 32-G(5) and is paid by the tenant
purchaser.”
27
20. In the above case, this Court held that there was
no need at all for the tenant to issue any notice of
intimation to the landlord as successor-in-tile as
the landlord has lost right to terminate the tenancy
regarding remaining half land. The contention that
tenant in facts of that case has to issue notice
under Section 32F within the period prescribed was
rejected while observing following in paragraph No.
27:-
“27. Learned counsel for the respondent
relied on the decisions of this Court in
Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan
Trade (1983) 3 SCC 437 , Anna Bhau Magdum v.
Babasaheb Anandrao Desai (1995) 5 SCC 243 ,
Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati
Nimbalkar (1999) 4 SCC 443 and Balchandra
Anantrao Rakvi v. Ramchandra Tukaram (2001)
8 SCC 616 to contend that the tenant has to
issue a notice under Section 32-F within
the period prescribed and if he fails to do
so, he loses the right to purchase the land
and the landlord will become entitled to
the same absolutely. These were all cases
where the landlord under disability had not
sought possession for personal cultivation
under Section 31(1) and where admittedly,
Sections 31(3) and 32-F applied and
consequently, there was an obligation on
the part of the tenant to send an
intimation under Section 32-F(1-A). None of
the cases related to a widow landlord who
had terminated the tenancy during her
lifetime and taken possession of a portion
28
of the tenanted land. Therefore, the said
decisions will not apply.”
21. The next judgment to be noticed is Tukaram Maruti
Chavan Vs. Maruti Narayan Chavan (Dead) by LRS. And
Others (2008) 9 SCC 358 , which judgment has been
relied by Revenue Tribunal also in the present case.
The facts of the case have been noticed in the
Paragraph Nos. 2 to 5, which are to the following
effect:-
“2. The relevant facts leading to the
filing of this appeal, as emerging from the
case made out by the appellant, may be
summarised as follows:
The dispute arose out of the
provision of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
(hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”) relating to the land being Gat
No. 44, measuring 5 hectares and 24
ares in Village Malangaon, Kavathe,
Mahankal Tehsil of Sangli District in
the State of Maharashtra (in short
“the disputed land”). Late Smt
Narmadabai who was a widow, was the
original landowner of the disputed
land. She died in 1964 leaving behind
her two sons, Ramchandra and Laxman
Bhau Sutar.
3. On 1-4-1957 i.e. on the Tiller’s Day,
the appellant was in cultivation of the
disputed land. The original tenant named
Maruti died subsequently in 1994 during the
pendency of the writ petition in the High
29
Court of Judicature at Bombay. The original
tenant had initiated proceedings under
Section 32-G of the Act before the
Additional Tahsildar, Kavathe Makhanlal,
and the case was decided in his favour with
the purchase price of the disputed land
being fixed. Thereafter, one of the heirs
of the deceased landowner Narmadabai, named
Laxman, preferred an appeal to the
appellate authority against the said order.
After the matter was remanded back to the
Additional Tahsildar, again an order
affirming the previous position was passed
in favour of the tenant under Section 32-G.
This time, the other heir of late Smt
Narmadabai, namely, Ramchandra, challenged
the said order before the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Miraj, and he again by his order
dated 31-3-1978, remanded the matter to the
Tahsildar for a detailed enquiry and
decision on the following points:
“( 1 ) The clear title of the disputed
land of the applicant Ramchandra
should be enquired.
( 2 ) The point of giving notice under
Section 32-F of the Act to the
landlord and the Agricultural Lands
Tribunal should be enquired as per
the provisions under Section 32-F of
the Act.”
4. When the matter came up before the
Tahsildar, he passed an order holding the
second respondent as the sole owner of the
disputed land. The purchase of the disputed
land by the appellant was therefore
declared to be ineffective for want of
notice under Section 32-F and the disputed
land was ordered to be disposed of under
Section 32-P of the Act. Thereafter, the
appellant preferred a revision before the
30
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but the same
was dismissed.
5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the
Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ
petition before the Bombay High Court on
28-12-1983. The Bombay High Court by its
impugned judgment and order dated 16-4-
1999, dismissed the said writ petition on
the ground that the respondent (Ramchandra)
was the sole owner of the disputed land in
pursuance of the letters of administration
obtained by him from the civil court. It is
this decision of the High Court, which is
impugned in this appeal in respect of which
the writ petition was filed.”
22. The contention of the appellant has been noticed
in Paragraph No.10 of the judgment, which is to the
following effect:-
“ 10. The learned counsel on behalf of the
appellant contended that if Sections 31 and
32-F are read together, then the tenant is
not required to give any notice to the
landlord because neither Narmadabai nor her
successor-in-interest ever gave any notice
to the tenant under Section 31 of the Act.
Counsel for the respondent on the other
hand contended that Section 32-F is a
complete section in itself and the
provision of the earlier sections cannot
influence or have overriding effect. He
therefore contended that whatever be the
right of the landlord under Section 31, the
same gets separated by virtue of the
provisions of Section 32-F. This contention
was negated by the counsel for the
appellant arguing that Section 32-F cannot
be said to have overriding effect on all
the earlier sections.”
31
23. This Court held that tenant was under legal
obligation or statutory duty to give notice of his
intention to purchase the land as required under
Section 32F. In Paragraph No. 13, following has been
stated:-
“13. In our view, the High Court correctly
pointed out that the provisions of Section
32-F are independent in nature and are
separate from the provisions under Section
31 of the Act. The exception mentioned
under Section 32-F(1) to sub-section (2) is
limited to the sections referred to in it
i.e. from Sections 32 to 32-E (both
inclusive) and Sections 32-G to 32-R (both
inclusive). Further the expression
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the
preceding sections” under sub-section (1)
of Section 32-F is of paramount importance.
Considering the fact that Section 31 is not
included in the sections mentioned under
sub-section (2) of Section 32-F, and the
expression “Notwithstanding anything
contained in the preceding sections” under
sub-section (1) of Section 32-F, we are of
the view that the right given to the
landlord under Section 31 has nothing to do
with the right given to the tenant under
Section 32-F for purchasing the land and
consequently it has to be held that the
appellant in this case was under a legal
obligation or statutory duty to give notice
of his intention to purchase the land as
required under Section 32-F.”
24. The submission of the appellant that she could
not serve a notice since she was not sure of the
32
title of the disputed land was also not accepted by
this Court. Following was observed by this Court in
Paragraph No.18:-
“18. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant has argued before
us that the appellant could not serve a
notice to the landowner since he was not
sure about the title of the disputed land
owing to a dispute between the two sons of
late Smt Narmadabai who were claiming the
title of the disputed land. We cannot
accept this contention of the appellant.
The order passed by the Tahsildar, Kavathe
Mahankal, lays down the fact that Shri
Ramchandra, Respondent 2 in this case, had
produced a certified copy of the judgment
and order dated 28-4-1966, passed by the
Senior Joint Civil Judge in Miscellaneous
Application No. 25 of 1965 in which it has
been declared that Shri Ramchandra is the
owner of the disputed land on the basis of
the will executed by his mother late Smt
Narmadabai. The appellant also in his
deposition admitted that:
“The owner of the said land was Smt
Narmadabai Bhau Sutar. Narmadabai
died before 10/12 years. Ramchandra
Bhau Sutar filed suit on the basis of
the will, and got transferred the
land of Narmadabai in his name.”
25. The ratio of the above noted judgments can be
restated in following words:-
33
(i) For a landlord suffering from a disability
on the Tillers Day i.e. 01.04.1957, the
deemed purchase shall be suspended.
(ii) Landlord suffering from a disability has a
right under Section 31(3) of the Act to
give notice of termination of tenancy and
file an application for possession.
(iii) Under Section 31(3), a minor, within one
year from date on which he attains majoriy;
a successor-in-title of a widow within one
year from the date on which her interest in
the land ceases to exist; and landlord
within one year from the date on which
his/her mental or physical disability
ceases to exist can also give an
application for termination of tenancy and
possession.
(iv) Under Section 32F tenant has right to
purchase where landlord was minor or a
widow or a person subject to mental or
physical disability within one year from
the expiry of the period during which such
landlord is entitled to terminate the
tenancy under Section 31.
34
(v) The tenant, in event, does not exercise his
right of purchase within the period as
prescribed under Section 32F(1)(a), his/her
right to purchase shall be lost.
26. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that
landlady died on 07.05.1999 and within one year
thereafter her successor-in-title did not exercise
his right under Section 31(3) and thereafter within
one year tenant has not given any intimation for
purchase as contemplated by Section 32(F). The
question to be answered is as to whether in the above
facts, Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Tribunal as
well as the High Court were right in their conclusion
that right of the tenant, i.e. the appellant has
lost, he having not issued any intimation for
purchase of the land within one year from expiry of
the period as contemplated under Section 31(3).
27. The ratio of this Court as noticed above
especially in judgments of this Court in Appa
Narsappa Magdum (supra), Sudam Ganpat Kutwal(supra)
and Tukaram Maruti Chavan (supra) clearly support the
submission of learned counsel for the respondents
35
that the appellants having not exercised their right
to purchase under Section 32F(1) read with (1A)
within the time prescribed the right of purchase of
the tenant is lost. But there is one aspect of the
matter which needs to be noted and has not been
considered in the above judgments rendered by two-
Judge Benches of this Court which we shall notice
hereinafter.
28. The 1948 Act was amended by Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969.
Section 32F was also amended by the above Amendment
Act, 1969. It is useful to refer to the Statement of
Objects and Reasons which led to amendment in Section
32 of the Act. L.A. Bill No. LXII of 1969 was
introduced in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on
th
18 August, 1969. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Bill are relevant for the present case
which are to the following effect:
“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS.
It has come to the notice of Government
that a number of tenants in the Bombay area
and the Vidarbha region of the State,
failed to acquire ownership right in the
lands held by them on account of their
36
being dispossessed from the land otherwise
than in the manner laid down in the
relevant tenancy law. It is, therefore,
expedient to amend the tenancy laws in
force in these regions for safeguarding
the interest of these dispossessed tenants.
It is also noticed that a large number
of tenants in the Bombay area of the State
holding land from landlords who were minors
have lost right to purchase land for their
failure to give intimation within the
period laid down in subsection (IA) of
section 32, It is, therefore, necessary to
give these tenants a fresh opportunity to
purchase land. Section 32F is, therefore,
being suitably amended for that purpose.
As a result of the decision of the
Supreme Court of India, in Civil appeals
Nos. 312(N) and 313(N) of 1966 from the
judgement of the High Court of Gujarat
regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court in
certain matters, it has also become
necessary to suitably amend certain
sections of the tenancy laws in force in
the three regions of the State.
The Bill seeks to achieve the above
objects.”
29. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons it is
noticed that a large number of tenants in the Bombay
area of the State holding lands from landlords who
were minors have lost right to purchase land for
their failure to give intimation within the period
laid down in sub-section (1A) of Section 32. The
37
above reason lead to the amendment. By Amendment Act,
1969 in Section 32F sub-section (1) in clause (a)
following words were added:
“and for enabling the tenant to exercise
the right of purchase, the landlord shall
send an intimation to the tenant of the
fact that he has attained majority, before
the expiry of the period during which such
landlord is entitled to terminate the
tenancy under section 31”
30. The above amendment caste a statutory obligation
on a landlord who has attained the majority to send
intimation to the tenant. The above amendment was
made to enable the tenant to exercise the right of
purchase which was the object and purpose of the
amendment.
31. Section 31(3) enumerates three categories of
landlord who suffers from one or other disabilities
due to which the right of purchase of tenant has been
suspended on Tillers Day. The three categories of
landlord have been empowered to give notice of
termination of tenancy. Section 31(3) for ready
reference is reproduced again:
38
“Section 31(3) Where a landlord is a minor,
or a widow, or a person subject to mental
or physical disability then such notice may
be given [and an application for possession
under section 29 may be made,]––
(i) by the minor within one year
from the date on which he attains
majority;
(ii) by the successor-in-title of a
widow within one year from the date on
which her interest in the land ceases to
exist;
(iii) within one year from the date
on which mental or physical disability
ceases to exist; and
(iv) ”
32. Amendment in Section 32(1)F(a) added by Act No.49
of 1969 expressly covered a case of landlord who was
minor and has attained majority. Intimation by a
minor landlord who has attained majority has been
made a statutory obligation of the landlord so that
tenant may exercise his right of purchase. The other
two categories which are a widow or a person subject
to mental or physical disability have not been
expressly included in the amendment incorporated in
Act 49 of 1969. The Statement of Objects and Reasons
of the amendment given in 1969 as well as the express
39
provisions of such amendment are for the purposes and
object to enable the tenant to exercise right of
purchase. When for one category of landlord i.e.
minor it is mandated that he will intimate the tenant
after he attained the majority so that tenant may be
enabled to exercise the right of purchase, we are of
the view that the same object has to be read in two
other categories of landlord that is the successor-
in-title of a widow and a landlord whose mental or
physical disability has been ceased. When the
legislative object is to facilitate a tenant of a
disabled landlord after cessation of disability to
exercise right of purchase, the same benefit needs to
be extended to other two categories of disabled
landlord. We do not find any distinction in three
categories of disabled landlord nor tenant of a
landlord who was a minor can be put on any higher
footing as compared to other landlords suffering from
the above two disabilities. The question may be asked
that amendment only expressly included the landlord
who has attained majority to send intimation and the
legislature consciously did not include the other two
40
categories of landlord i.e. successor-in-interest of
a widow and landlord of a mental and physical
disability ceases to exist. The Objects and Reasons
and express amendment made by Act 49 of 1969 were
with a view to enable the tenant to exercise his
right of purchase. The said legislative intendment is
to be extended to all tenants of landlords who were
suffering from disability on the Tillers Day, whether
successor-in-title of a widow or a landlord whose
mental or physical disability ceases. All the three
categories of tenants should be extended the same
benefit and provision should be interpreted so that
all tenants may be enabled to exercise their right of
purchase effectively and in real sense.
33. As in the present case tenant’s case is that he
was unaware of the death of the landlady since for
the last several years she was living in Bombay, the
date of knowledge of death of the landlady cannot be
said to be a irrelevant factor and unless the tenant
is aware of the death of landlady or in case of
landlord suffering from physical or mental
disability, how he will exercise his right of
41
purchase is an important question. The 1948 Act and
the Amendments made by 1969 Act were with intent to
facilitate tenants to exercise their right. The
Amendments by Act 15 of 1957 was agrarian reform
making tillers of the soil the owners of the land
which was done to achieve the object of making all
tillers of the soil as owners of the land. While
interpreting the provisions of Section 32F, 1A as
well as Section 31(3) the purpose and object of the
1948 Act, amendments made therein from time to time
cannot be lost sight.
34. When Section 32F of Act 1948 gives right to
purchase to a tenant whose landlord was suffering
from a disability on Tillers Day, the exercise of
right to purchase by such tenant has to be
interpreted in a manner so as to make the exercise of
right meaningful and effective. The above said right
cannot be defeated on the ground that it was not
exercised within period prescribed when the tenant is
unaware as to when the period has begun.
35. The period prescribed for exercising the right to
purchase is not a period of limitation but a
42
reasonable period prescribed for the exercise of a
right. The knowledge of cessation of disability of
landlord by the tenant can only be commencement of
period prescribed.
36. When a statute gives a right to a tenant, statute
needs to be interpreted in a manner so as to make the
right workable, effective and meaningful. Such right
cannot be defeated unless it is proved that tenant
even after knowing that disability has ceased does
not exercise his right within the period prescribed.
37. A two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Appa
Narsappa Magdum (supra) has expressly rejected the
submission that tenant had no intimation of the death
of landlady. Further judgments of this Court in Sudam
Ganpat Kutwal (supra) and Tukaram Maruti
Chavan(supra) also laid down the same ratio. The
judgments in the above three cases were rendered by
the two-Judge Benches in which cases the amendments
made by Act 49 of 1969 were neither raised or
considered. We, thus, are of the view that the ratio
laid down in the above cases needs to be reconsidered
and explained in view of the object and purpose for
43
which amendments were made in Section 32F(1)(a) by
Act 49 of 1969 as noticed above. We, thus, refer
following questions for consideration of a larger
Bench:
(1) Whether the object and purpose of amendment
made in Section 32F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969 is
also relevant and applicable for exercise of
right to purchase by a tenant of landlord who
was widow or suffering from mental and
physical disability on Tillers Day ?
(2) Whether the successor-in-interest of a widow
is also obliged to send an intimation to the
tenant of cessation of interest of the widow
to enable the tenant to exercise his right of
purchase.
(3) In the event the answer to above question (1)
or (2) is in affirmative, whether decision of
this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum, Sudam
Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan
(supra) needs reconsideration and explanation.
38. Let the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the
Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. In the
meantime, we direct that the parties shall maintain
the status quo.
44
......................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
......................J.
( AJAY RASTOGI )
New Delhi,
December 14, 2018.
45