AMRIT BHIKAJI KALE Vs. KASHINATH JANARDHAN TRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Land bearing Survey No. 1052 admeasuring 16 acres situated within the revenue limits of Village Sonai Taluka Nawasa Distt. Ahmednagar, belonged to Tarachand Chopra. Janardhan, the father of the respondent was admittedly the tenant of this land on April 1, 1957, Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as amended from time to time provided that on the Ist day of April, 1957, styled as the tillers' day every tenant shall subject to 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 a tenant if other conditions of the section are satisfied. Thus by operation of law. Janardhan, who was the tenant of the land on the tillers's day became the deemed purchaser thereof. Landlord Tarachand died on August 12, 1959. Before his death landlord Tarachand had executed a will and bequeathed the suit land to Ashoklal Gugale who was petitioner No. 5 before the High Court acting upon the will of Tarachand. Ashoklal got his name mutated in the revenue record in respect of suit land in his favour as owner. On the date of mutation, Ashoklal was a minor, Section 32-G imposes a statutory duty on the Agricultual Lands Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) to commence enquiry for determining the price of the land which is the subject-matter of compulsory purchase. The Tribunal is required to issue notice 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. Pursuant to such notice when the parties appeared before the Tribunal it was claimed on behalf of landlord that Ashoklal, the recorded owner was a minor and therefore the sale was postponed under Section 32-F. The Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction in not noticing the obvious fact that the relevant date on which compulsory sale takes place is April 1, 1957, and on that date Tarachand Chopra the landlord was the recorded owner and he was under no disability as envisaged by Section 32-F and therefore the sale had become effective and could not be postponed under Section 32-F. However, the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by mis-stating an obvious irrelevant fact that as recorded owner was a minor, compulsory sale was postponed as envisaged by S. 32-F. It appears that the Tribunal again commenced proceedings in the year 1967 under Section 32-G and concluded the proceedings by its order dated July 13, 1967, repeating the jurisdictional errors and thereby failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. In the meantime minor landlord through his next friend commenced proceedings in Case No. 36 of 1967, in the Court of Tenancy Aval Karkoon having jurisdiction in the area for recovery of possession from tenant Janardhan who had become a deemed purchaser, under Section 14 read with Section 29 of the Tenancy Act. Section 14 enables the landlord to recover possession if tenant commits default in payment of rent for certain number of years. The Tenancy Aval Karkoon entertained the petition which it had no jurisdiction because there was no subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between Ashoklal and Janardhan as Janardhan had already become deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957. However, the Tenancy Aval Karkoon taking note of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal holding that the date of compulsory sale was postponed directed possession to be handed over to the landlord holding that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent.

(2.) Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant at this stage pointed out that in the proceeding under Section 14 read with Section 29 of the Tenancy Act, the tenant Janardhan had made a statement on October 5, 1967, that he had no objection to handing over possession of the land to the landlord as he was old and could not cultivate the land personally. On the same day, surprisingly the tenancy Aval Karkoon also recorded the statement of present respondent though in the lifetime of his father Janardhan, he had no title to the land involved in the dispute. It appears that the Tenancy Aval Karkoon made the order dated Oct. 6, 1967, evicting Janardhan from the land on the footing that he was a tenant liable to pay rent and had committed defaults. This wholly null and void order enabled the minor landlord to sell the land by a registered deed on Nov. 13, 1967 to the petitioner No. 1 and one Haribhav and the latter in turn transferred his interest in favour of other petitioners.

(3.) Misled by the two orders of the Tribunal holding that the sale was postponed, Janardhan served a notice on October 6, 1971, as envisaged by Section 32-F that as the landlord has attained majority he is entitled to purchase the land and that the price of land be determined. Presumably, pursuant to this notice, the Tribunal commenced proceedings under Sections 32-G and 32-F of the Tenancy Act for determining the purchase price. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners transferees from Ashoklal before the Tribunal that as Janardhan has already handed over possession to Ashoklal he had no subsisting interest in the land and therefore he had no right to purchase the land under Section 32-F and that the proceedings be dropped. This contention found favour with the Tribunal which overlooked the legal position that Janardhan had become the deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957. Janardhan died on Nov. 29, 1976, leaving respondent his son as the sole heir. After the death of Janardhan an enquiry was commenced to ascertain whether Janardhan the deceased tenant had already become the deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957, and that all the subsequent proceedings were ab initio void. There were some proceedings in between under Section 84 which are hardly relevant. The Tribunal went into the matter in depth, examined all previous orders and finally reached an affirmative conclusion that on April 1, 1957 Tarachand was the recorded landlord and being under no disability and Janardhan being his tenant of land, by operation of law, Janardhan became the deemed purchaser and all subsequent proceedings were null, void and non est. The Tribunal accordingly determined the purchase price. The present petitioners after unsuccessfully appealing to the Assistant Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 76 of the Tenancy Act, reached the High Court under Article 227.