ANNA BHAU MAGDUM Vs. BABASAHEB ANANDRAO DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated April 8, 1994 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2435 of 1981. It raises a question involving interpretation of the provisions contained in Sections 32-F and 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Vijay Mala Jaisingrao Bhosale (for short Bhosale) was the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 187/1 measuring 1 acre 34 gunthas situate at village Shirte in District Kolhapur of the State of Maharashtra. The said land was leased out to Anna Bhau Magdum, the predecessor in title to the appellants. By a gift deed dated September 4, 1953 Bhosale gifted the said land to the respondent herein, Babasaheb Anandrao Desai. The respondent was a minor at the time-his date of birth being 17th January, 1947. By Bombay Act 13 of 1956 the Act was amended to confer special rights and privileges on tenants. By virtue of Section 32, as amended, it was declared that on 1st April 1957, described as "the titlers' day," every tenant satisfying the requirements of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have purchased from his landlord the land held by him as tenant free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said land held by him as a tenant. This was, however, subject to the provisions of Part II of Chapter III of the Act, viz.,Sections 32A to 32-R. Section 32-G lays down the procedure for determining the price of the land to be paid by the tenant and Section 32-F contains special provisions in cases where the landlord was a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to any mental or physical disability on 1st April, 1957. The respondent attained majority on January 17, 1965. Proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act were started in respect of the said land in 1960, but in view of the fact that the landlord was a minor the said proceedings were dropped by an order dated 2nd September, 1966 passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Shirole. Thereafter, in 1975, fresh proceeding under Section 32-G were started before the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Shirole. After making the necessary inquiry the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal passed an order dated August 27, 1975 holding that the tenant has lost his right to purchase the suit land and declared that the purchase of the land by the tenant has become ineffective under Section 32-G (3) of the Act. The said order was set aside on appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tulsi Project, Kolhapur by order dated February 21, 1977 and the matter was remanded to the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal for holding a fresh inquiry. Thereafter, the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Shirole passed the order dated March 19, 1980, whereby it was declared that tenant's purchase was ineffective and it was directed that the land should be disposed of by holding further inquires under Section 32-P (1). It was held that in view of Section 32-F (1A), the tenant could exercise his right of purchase by sending an intimation up to January 17, 1967 and since the tenant had failed to send such an intimation his right of purchase stood forfeited. It was also held that by the amendment incorporated in Section 32-F (1A) by Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969 a further opportunity was given to the tenant to exercise his right of purchase by sending the intimation up to October 17, 1971 and that even during this period of extension the tenant did not avail of the opportunity an din the circumstances the right of purchase of the tenant became automatically ineffective and he had become liable for summary eviction under Section 32 P (1). The appeal filed by the tenant against the said order of the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal was dismissed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Karvir Division, Kolhapur by judgment dated September 10, 1980. The revision application filed by the tenant against the said judgment of the Sub-divisional Officer was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by judgment dated March 17, 1981. The writ petition filed by the tenant has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The question which falls for consideration is whether the tenant was entitled to avail the right conferred under the Act to purchase the land held by him. It is, therefore, necessary to briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. On January 17, 1965 the said provisions read as follows: