SHASHIKANT MOHANLAL DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions raise a short but interesting question of construction of sec. 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1943 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though the question of law which arises in these petitions is common the facts are not identical and it is therefore necessary to state the facts of each petition separately.

(2.) Petition No. 372 of 1967 :- Prior to 1st April 1957 the petitioners predecessor in title was the landlord and the predecessor in title of the third respondent was the tenant of survey No. 228 situate in village Rander Taluka Chorashi District Surat. By reason of sec. 32 of the Act the predecessor in title of the third respondent became the deemed purchaser of the said survey number on 1st April 1957 and in an inquiry held under sec. 32G the Agricultural Lands Tribunal fixed the purchase price of the said survey number at Rs. 12 0 by an order made on 31st October 1963. The purchase price was payable in twelve equal annual installments of Rs. 1000/each together with interest at four and one half per cent per annum but it appears that the entire purchase price together with accrued interest was deposited by the third respondent with the Agricultural Lands Tribunal by 26th April 1965 and a certificate of purchase was accordingly issued by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in favour of the third respondent on 28th April 1965. The petitioner in the meantime came to learn that the third respondent was negotiating for sale of the said survey number to the fourth respondent for a price of over Rs. 1 30 0 and the petitioner therefore addressed letters to the Chief Minister the Revenue Minister and the Collector protesting against the intended transfer of the said survey number by the third respondent at such a large profit. The record does not show whether any reply was received by the petitioner from the Chief Minister the Revenue Minister or the Collector but it is clear that an agreement dated 29th July 1965 was entered into by the third respondent with the fourth respondent for sale of the said survey number at the price of Rs. 1 32 391 Pursuant to a public notice issued by the fourth respondent inviting objections against the proposed purchase of the said survey number the petitioner communicated his objections to the fourth respondent by a letter dated 21st May 1966 and the petitioner also on the same day wrote to the Assistant Collector inquiring whether any application for sanction was received by him. The Assistant Collector replied by his letter dated 4th June 1966 stating that no application for sanction had been received till then from the third respondent. The petitioner thereafter had an interview with the Revenue Minister and according to him he was assured by the Revenue Minister that no sanction would be granted for sale of the said survey number by the third respondent to the fourth respondent. The Assistant Collector however by an order dated 23rd December 1966 granted sanction to the third respondent to sell the said survey number to the fourth respondent for the price of Rs. 1 32 391.3 on condition that the third respondent paid to the State Government fifty per cent of the profit resulting to him from the sale namely Rs. 60 195.65 np. Pursuant to the sanction granted by the Assistant Collector the third respondent sold the said survey number to the fourth respondent for the price of Rs. 1 32 391.3 on 30th December 1966 and paid a sum of Rs. 60 195.65 representing fifty per cent of the excess of Rs. 1 32 391.3 over Rs. 12 0 to the State Government. This led to the filing of Petition No. 372 of 1967. ... ... ... .. ... .. .. .. ..

(3.) Each of these petitions impugned the validity of the order of the Collector granting sanction for sale of the respective lands as also of the sale effected by the tenant pursuant to the sanction so granted. There were in the main two contentions on which the challenge was based. The first contention was that on a true construction of sec. 43 the Collector could grant sanction to the tenant for sale only on condition that the tenant agreed to make payment of the amount determined by the Government to the landlord and since the order granting sanction did not contain any such condition it was illegal and void. It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner in each petition and that was the second contention that on a proper interpretation of sec. 43 payment to the landlord of an amount to be determined by the State Government was a condition of the sale and since this condition was not satisfied the sale effected by the tenant in each of the four petitions was invalid. The respondents disputed the validity of both these contentions and they urged that there was nothing in sec. 43 which required the Collector to make it a condition of the grant of sanction for sale that the tenant should make payment of the amount determined by the State Government to the landlord and though it was no doubt true that under sec. 43 the sale could not be effected by the tenant except on payment of the amount determined by the State Government this condition was satisfied for the payment contemplated was payment to the State Government and not to the landlord and fifty per cent of the net profit as determined by the State Government in the Government Resolution dated 17th January 1961 was paid by the tenant in each case to the State Government. These rival contentions raised an interesting question of construction which we shall now proceed to consider.