Tenants may pay purchase price for ineffective sales if land remains undisposed of by State under Section 32P.

The petitioners were tenants of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 1094 and 992 in Village Hajipur.

While they were deemed purchasers as of Tiller’s Day (01.04.1957), they failed to pay the fixed purchase price, leading to the purchase being declared "ineffective" under Section 32M of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Consequently, the land vested in the State Government for disposal under Section 32P(2)(c).

On 10.12.2025, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Kalol, passed an impugned order consigning the petitioners' application for a Section 32M purchase certificate to file.

The petitioners challenged this, citing fresh Government notifications extending the timeline to pay the purchase price.

1. Whether the petitioners retain the right to apply for a certificate of purchase under Section 32M(5) when the land has vested in the State but has not yet been formally disposed of under Section 32P(2)(c).

2. Whether the Mamlatdar was justified in consigning the application to file despite the State Government's notifications extending the statutory time limits.

Section 32M(5) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which allows a tenant to deposit the purchase price with interest even after the expiry of original periods, provided the land has not been disposed of by the Collector under Section 32P.

Section 32P(2)(c), which establishes the priority list for land disposal, naming the terminated tenant as the first priority.

State Government Notifications dated 18.07.2025 and 27.03.2026, which extended the window for such deposits until 31.12.2026.

The court noted that although the purchase was originally declared ineffective due to non-payment, the subject lands (Survey Nos. 1094 and 1092) currently vest with the State Government and have not been disposed of to third parties under the Section 32P(2)(c) proceedings.

The Court reasoned that since the land remains undisposed, Section 32M(5) specifically empowers the tenant to revive their purchase right by paying the entire amount plus interest.

The Mamlatdar’s decision to consign the application was found erroneous because it ignored the statutory "second chance" provided by Section 32M(5) and the valid extensions of time granted via Government notifications, which are currently active until December 2026.

It held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the extension notifications to seek a certificate under Section 32M(5).

The Court directed the petitioners to file a fresh application and ordered the respondent authority to decide the same on its merits—accepting the purchase price and interest—within three months. The petition was allowed and Rule made absolute.