RUKHAMANBAI Vs. SHIVRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the wake of agrarian reforms initiated by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('Tenancy Act' for short) an amendment of far reaching and revolutionary character was introduced in 1956 so as to eliminate every intermediary between the tiller of the soil and the State. 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 or the alternative period prescribed in that behalf. This title is defeasible only in the event of the tenant failing to appear or making a statement that he is not willing to purchase the land or committing default in payment of the price thereof as determined by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (See Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay (1959) 1 Suppl. SCR 489 at page No. 519.

(2.) Section 32 provided that on April 1, 1957 styled the tillers' day, a tenant of agricultural land covered by the Tenancy Act would become the owner of the land held by him if other conditions specified in the section were fulfilled. A forum styled Agricultural Lands Tribunal was set-up and a procedure was prescribed in the Act to determine the price payable by such tenant to the erstwhile landlord on becoming owner of the land held by him. Accordingly five tenants of five different pieces of agricultural land made five separate applications on August 27, 1962, against a common landlord, the appellant herein before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal ('ALT' for short), Raver, under Sec. 32-G of the Tenancy Act for determining the price of land held by each of them as tenant. The landlord appeared in each proceeding and contested the right of the tenant to purchase the land, inter alia, contending that under a deed of settlement dated May 22, 1930, she acquired a right only to usufruct of land involved in the dispute and thus she is a limited owner and the settlement imposes certain disability on her precluding her from dealing with the property which would indicate that she could not have leased out the land thereby creating an encumbrance which would be impermissible under the deed of settlement and consequently the tenant of each piece of land could not be said to be lawfully cultivating the land so as to become the deemed tenant under Sec. 4 of the Tenancy Act. It was also contended that the applicant (respondent herein) before ALT was not a tenant within the meaning of the Tenancy Act and therefore he could not have become the owner of the land on the tillers' day. Alternatively, it was contended that the minor children of the landlord who being the limited owner, had acquired a vested right in the land involved in the dispute under the deed of settlement and therefore as the landlords were minors the date of compulsory purchase in the case of such minor-landlord would be postponed under Section 32-F and therefore the ALT had no jurisdiction to determine the price under Section 32-G.

(3.) The ALT held that the appellant was the landlord and the tenant in each case was a deemed tenant under Sec. 4 of the Tenancy Act and on Ist April, 1957 by the operation of law he became the owner thereof. It was also held that the ALT was under a statutory obligation to determine the price under Section 32-G. The ALT accordingly proceeded to determine the price in each case.