PATEL SURESHBHAI JASHBHAI Vs. PATEL SATABHAI MATHURBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Sureshbhai is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 21 situated at Village Ode, Taluka Anand, District Kaira in Gujarat State. One Nathabhai Zaveribhai and the present respondent were recorded as tenants on the tillers' day i. e. 1st April, 1957. Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, ('Tenancy Act' for short) provided that on the 1st day of April 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the tillers' day) every tenant shall subject to the other provisions of the section and the provisions of the next succeeding sections, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the same date the land held by him as tenant. Section 32-G provided for the follow up action of the compulsory purchase that ensues by the operation of Section 32. Section 32G thus envisages the determination of the price in accordance with the various provisions of the Act, of the land deemed to have been purchased by the tenant on the tiller's day and the methodology of its payment. In order to determine the price the Agricultural Lands Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) has to serve a notice in the prescribed manner to (a) all tenants who under Section 32 are deemed to have purchased the lands (b) all landlords of such lands and (c) all other persons interested therein to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. Sub-section (2) provides that the Tribunal shall record in the prescribed manner, the statement of the tenant whether he is or is not willing to purchase the land held by him as a tenant. Sub-section (3) provides that where tenant falls to appear or makes a statement that he is not willing to purchase the land, the Tribunal shall by an order in writing declare that such a person is not willing to purchase the land and that the purchase is ineffective. The remaining subsections provide the manner and method of determining the price. The Tribunal having jurisdiction in the area in which the land involved in the dispute is situated issued notice to Nathabhai Zaveribhai and the present appellant as well as the landlord of the land under Section 32-G. It appears both the tenants i. e. Nathabhai Zaveribhai and the present respondent refused to accept notice to remain present and when summons was served by substituted service both of them did not remain present. The Tribunal accordingly declared the sale ineffective as provided by Section 32G(3). The Tribunal accordingly made its order annexure B dated July 20, 1962, declaring that the sale is ineffective. Subsequently the present respondent made an application under Section 32PP requesting the Tribunal to determine the price of the land deemed to have been purchased by him being Survey No. 21 of Village Ode on April 1, 1957. It may be clarified that Section 32-PP was designed to give a further opportunity to the tenant who had failed to appear before the Tribunal which led to the sale being held ineffective, to purchase the land. This application was resisted by the appellant-landlord. The Tribunal held that the present respondent was not a tenant of the suit land and Nathabhai Zaveribhai was the only tenant who has not made an application under Section 32-PP and therefore the present respondent is not entitled to be declared a deemed purchaser and accordingly it is not necessary to determine the purchase price. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector. This appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Collector concurring with the findings of the Tribunal. The respondent moved a revision petition under Section 76 of the Tenancy Act in the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. A learned member of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal held that once the notice was issued to person who is shown to have purchased the land under Section 32 and if the sale is held ineffective because of his absence under Section 32-G, in a subsequent proceeding under Section 32-PP it is not open to the landlord to challenge that such a person was not tenant. Alternatively, on the merits it was held that the present respondent was tenant of the" land on April 4, 1957, and he has become a deemed purchaser and the Tribunal was bound to determine the price. The matter was accordingly remitted to the Tribunal. Present appellant-landlord moved a petition under Art. 227 in the High Court of Gujarat which was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the notice under Section 32-G was issued to the present respondent and Nathabhai Zaveribhai with a view to determining the price of land bearing Survey No. 21. The notice was also served upon the appellant-landlord. In a proceeding for determining the price the necessary parties are the landlord and the tenant as the tenant becomes the owner of the land by operation of law. A statutory duty is cast on the Tribunal to proceed to determine the purchase price. But as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay, (1959) 1 Suppl. SCR 489 at page No. 518, that.

(3.) Thus, it is clear that the title passes by the operation of law. The Tribunal has to determine the price as envisaged by Section 32G. In order to effectively dispose of the proceedings in the presence of the necessary parties, the Tribunal is under an obligation to issue notice to the landlord and the tenant. Order of the Tribunal dated July 20, 1962, shows that both the tenants and the landlord were served. The order further shows that the tenants refused to accept the notice and after substituted service did not remain present. It appears that the landlord remained present. The Tribunal declared the sale ineffective on account of the absence of the tenants. So far there is no dispute.