Bombay HC Upholds Rejection of Tenant’s Heirs’ Claims to Buy Two Pune Lands, Citing Grassland, Long Delay and Unpaid Rent

The tenant sought fixation of purchase price under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for two land parcels.

He claimed that his tenancy had been recorded in 1953 and that, following a partition, his name was omitted from the records for the parcels in dispute.

He had obtained fixation of the purchase price for the other portions of the original survey lands, but filed the present applications in 1986 and 1991.

The ALT fixed the purchase prices and the SDO dismissed the landlord’s appeals.

The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the landlord’s revisions under Section 76 and rejected the tenant’s applications; the tenant’s heirs challenged that common order in these writ petitions.

Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 provides for determination of the purchase price; the Court accepted that there is no limitation for an application under that section, relying on L.J. Kriplani v. Manik Aditwar Patil.

Sections 74 and 76 provide for appeals and revisions under the Act.

Under Nathubhai Gandabhai Desai v. State of Bombay, cutting grass, fencing, or protecting grass does not constitute agricultural activity or operation; that view was followed in Pune Panjarpole Trust v. Baban Gabaji Saste concerning grazing and grass-cutting lands.

In supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its factual conclusions for those of the tribunal absent grave dereliction, flagrant abuse, or violation of fundamental legal or justice principles: Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel.

Although the Section 32G applications were not time-barred, the Court considered the prolonged delay in seeking purchase of the remaining portions, the tenant’s participation in earlier purchase proceedings, and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the later applications.

The tenant’s evidence that he had not paid rent to the landlord’s heirs for 35–40 years, together with the discrepancy between the rent receipts and the landlord and land in question, undermined his claim to tenancy on the tillers’ day.

The disputed lands’ recorded character as grassland was also relevant because grass-cutting and grazing did not, on the cited authorities, establish agricultural operations.

The Tribunal’s conclusion was therefore a supportable view of the evidence and did not warrant correction in writ jurisdiction.

Both writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.