NARAYAN LAXMAN RAO PATIL Vs. KESHAV BHIMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application, in revision, from the order of the Additional Collector, Aurangabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Narayan Laxman, the petitioner, was the owner of Survey No. 821 situate at Shevar. One Keshav Bhimji, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was the tenant in respect of the said land. A provisional declaration was made under Section 38 -E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner made an applicaion to the Tahsildar contending that his holding is less than the extent of two family holdings. He suggested that Survey Nos. 834 and 1102/3 together measuring 61 acres 3 gunthas belonged to his deceased brother, Trimbak, and after the death of the latter, those lands were inherited by his widow, Dwarkabai. It appears that the respondent had made an application before the Tahsildar stating that he was not prepared to purchase the Survey No. 821. The Tahsildar held that the petitioner's holding is more than the extent of two family holdings. At the same time, he held that inasmuch as the respondent was not prepared to purchase the land bearing Survey No. 821, it should revert to the Government. From that decision, the petitioner went in appeal before the Collector, During the pendency of the appeal, it appears that the respondent put in an application before the Collector stating that he had been deceived by the petitioner into making the application before the Tahsildar to the effect that he was not prepared to purchase the suit land. He stated that he was prepared to purchase the same at the price fixed by the Government. This application was ignored by the Collector and the latter upheld the decision of the Tahsildar. Therefore, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court. He has impleaded the protected tenant as also the Government of Bombay as respondents to this petition. Mr. Kanade has appeared for the respondent -tenant and Mr. V - T. Gambhirwala has represented the State.

(2.) MR . Vaishnav, for the petitioner, attacked the orders of the lower Courts on two grounds. Firstly, he contended that there has been no proper investigation into the extent of the holding of the petitioner; that Survey Nos. 834 and 1102/3 should have been excluded in computing the extent of his holding and that if these lands were excluded, then the extent of his holding would be less than two family holdings. Secondly, he contended that there is no provision in the Act which empowers the Collector to pass an order for reversion of the land in favour of the Government, when the protected tenant refused to purchase the same. Mr. Kanade supports Mr. Vaishnav so far as the second point is concerned. He contended that the mere refusal on the part of the protected tenant, does not amount to surrender or relinquishment of his tenancy rights and that there is no provision in the Act under which the land could go to the Government. Mr. Gambhirwala was unable to show any provision in the Act, under which the Collector can declare that the land, which the protected tenant has refused to purchase, reverts to the Government.

(3.) THERE is no provision in the Act, under which the land would automatically revert to the Government, in case a protected tenant has refused to purchase the same. In this connection, we may refer to the provisions of Sections 19A, 53 -C and 53 -G of the Act. Sub -section (7) of Section 19A provides for the extent of the land, which a landholder can retain from out of the land surrendered by the tenant. The last part of Sub -section (2) lays down that 'the Tahsildar shall declare any land surrendered which the landholder is not entitled to retain under the provisions aforesaid, to be surplus land'. As stated above, this is not a case of a land, which has been surrendered by a protected tenant in favour of the landholder. Section 19A, therefore, obviously does not apply to the present case. Then comes Section 53 -C - of the Act. It empowers the Government to declare its intention to assume management of an agricultural land for a public purpose. Section 53 -G empowers the Government to compulsorily acquire a land, the management of which has been assumed under Section 53 -C of the Act subject to the payment of the reasonable price by way of compensation. It is, therefore, clear that Sections 53 -C and 53 -G of the Act are inapplicable to the present case. in this connection, it will be interesting to refer to the provisions of Sections 32E and 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Section 32E confers express power upon the Government for disposing of land, which remains in balance after purchase by the tenant under Section 32 of the Bombay Act. The mode of disposal of such lands is laid down in Sections 15 and 32P of the Act. It is not necessary for me to consider the provisions of these sections in detail. It is sufficient to note that the Bombay Tenancy Act confers express powers upon the Government for forfeiting agricultural lands under certain circumstances and disposing them of in the manner prescribed therein. There are no similar powers provided in the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. It must, therefore, be held that the Government have no powers of treating a land as surplus land and taking over the same for management or for the purpose of disposal under the Hyderabad Act.