PANDURANG DNYANOBA LAD Vs. DADA RAMA METHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant owned a land, Survey No. 72, at Shiroli in the district of Kolhapur. The land was held by the appellant for the performance of miscellaneous inferior services and was classified as a Huzur Sanadi Inam land. Respondents have been in possession of a portion of the land as tenants and were declared as purchasers under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. LXVII of 1948, (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act). Consequent upon the declaration, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Hatkanagale, fixed the price of the land under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. That decision was confirmed in appeal by the Special Deputy Collector. Kolhapur, and in revision by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The appellant filed a petition in the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the decision of the Revenue Tribunal but that petition was dismissed summarily by a learned Single Judge. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court.

(2.) The Tenancy Act provides by Section 32 that on April 1, 1957, called the "tillers' day", every tenant shall, subject to certain conditions, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord the land held by him as a tenant. Section 32G requires the Agricultural Land Tribunal to determine the purchase price of the land in accordance with a statutory formula. The dispute before us is not as regards the arithmetic of the price fixation but as regards whether the respondents are qualified at all to purchase the land under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. The right of a tenant to opt for a compulsory purchase of the agricultural land held by him is no longer open to constitutional doubt or difficulty. But, the respondents' right to purchase the land is questioned by the appellant on the ground that they ceased to be tenants and have therefore no right of purchase.

(3.) This plea is founded on the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, XXII of 1955, (hereinafter called the Alienations Abolition Act). It is argued that with the abolition of Inams effected under that Act, the old relationship, of landlord and tenant between the appellant and respondents came to an end, that with the re-grant of occupancy rights to the appellant a new relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence between them and since the respondents did not exercise their right to repurchase the land within the period prescribed by Section 32-O of the Tenancy Act, they have forfeited that right. According to the appellant, the provisions of the Tenancy Act and the Alienations Abolition Act are in a material respect inconsistent and the inconsistency has to be resolved by giving precedence of the latter Act.