HAJI BEGUM Vs. RAISANG BECHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order passed by the Collector of Broach reducing the purchase price for certain lands fixed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under sec. 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners were the owners of lands bearing Survey Nos. 121 122 and 123 situate in village Osara Taluka Broach District Broach. The respective areas of these lands were 2 acres 33 gunthas 4 acres 11 gunthas and 5 acres 11 gunthas and their respective assessments were Rs. 15-56 Rs. 23-50 and 29-00. The first respondent was the tenant of the petitioners in respect of the lands and there is no dispute that on the tillers day that is 1 April 1957 the first respondent was deemed to have purchased the lands from the petitioners. The petitioners and the first respondent could not reach an agreement in regard to the purchase price of the lands and proceedings for determining the purchase price of the lands were therefore initiated by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under sec. 32G of the Act. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal after giving an opportunity to the parties and holding an inquiry fixed the purchase price of the lands at 115 times the assessment and since the assessment of the lands aggregated to Rs. 68-06 nP. the purchase price was calculated at Rs. 7 826 nP. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal in arriving at this figure of the purchase price took into account what it called the features of the case the prices of corn etc. prevailing and the profits of agriculture in the locality. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal also awarded interest on the amount of the purchase price at the rata of 4 1/2 per cent per annum from 1st April 1957 to 26th April 1961 being the date of the order and directed that the total amount of Rs. 8 629 made up of the purchase price and interest after deducting therefrom the amount of rent paid by the first respondent after 1st April 1957 should be paid by the first respondent to the petitioners in twelve annual instalments. The first respondent was aggrieved by this order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and he therefore preferred an appeal to the Collector Broach. The Collector took the view that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had fixed the purchase price at 115 times the assessment without showing how the various factors referred to by it had influenced the price fixation and that the reasons given by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal were vague. The Collector observed that it was for the parties to adduce evidence on the relevant factors prescribed in the Act and the Rules made under the Act and held that since the parties in the case before her had led no evidence in regard to the rental value or profits of agriculture of similar lands in the locality or other factors prescribed in the Act or the Rules the best way in which the purchase price of the lands could be fixed was by capitalisation of the rent payable by the first respondent to the petitioners and in her opinion twenty times represented a reasonable rate of capitalisation and applying that rate she fixed the purchase price of the lands at Rs. 4 950 The Collector regarded capitalisation of the rent as a scientific method of arriving at the purchase price of the lands since in her view after the coming into force of the Act rent was the only benefit that a landlord could hope to derive in respect of land leased by him fixity of tenure and fixity of rent being guaranteed to the tenant by the Act. The petitioners thereupon preferred the present petition challenging the validity of this order passed by the Collector.

(2.) The main ground of attack against the order of the Collector was that the Collector fixed the purchase price of the lands in breach of the provisions of sec. 32G sub-sec. (4) read with sec. 63A sub-sec. (3). The argument was that by reason of the combined effect of sec. 32G subsec. (4) and sec. 63A sub-sec. (3) the Agricultural Lands Tribunal acting under sec. 32G and the Collector in appeal under sec. 32J were bound to fix the purchase price of the lands having regard to the factors set out in sec. 63A sub-sec. (3) and that though the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had taken these factors into account the Collector had failed to do so and the purchase price fixed by the Collector without taking into account these factors was therefore liable to be set aside. This contention involves an examination of the provisions of sec. 32G sub-sec. (4) and sec. 63A sub-sec. (3) and we shall therefore immediately proceed to state these provisions and to determine their true scope and effect in relation to the questions arising in the petition.

(3.) Section 32G sub-sec. (4) deals with a situation where a tenant appears before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal pursuant to the notice issued by it under sec. 32G sub-sec. (1) and intimates to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal that he is willing to purchase the land of which he is a tenant. What is to happen in such a case is provided by sec. 32G subsec. (4) in the following terms:-