TRIMBAK BALWANT KULKARNI Vs. CHAHALA BHIKHA RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point that arises in this petition is whether the amendment effected in Section 82M of the Bombay Tenancy Act by Maharashtra Act No. XXXI of 1965 is retrospective in effect. The point arises upon the decisions of the three forums, the Mamlatdar, the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal who gave a declaration that the tenant's purchase is not ineffective. The facts which led to this litigation are the following : The land in dispute was declared to be purchased by opponent No. 1 on August 6, 1959, by an order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. The purchase price was agreed to be Rs. 3,800 payable in 11 instalments and the first instalment of Rs. 521 was to be paid on January 15, 1960. That instalment was not paid but Rs. 400 were paid upto April 20,1962.

(2.) THEREAFTER on June 15, 1963, an application was made by the present petitioner for a declaration that the purchase made by the tenant, opponent No. 1, has become ineffective in view of the provisions of Section 32M(1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The application was decided on June 29, 1963 when the sale was declared to be ineffective. This was done when the tenant was absent. On November 20, 1968 the tenant made an application for setting aside the ex parte order and for restoring the application to file. Curiously enough, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal before whom the application for restoration was made, held that the declaration that the sale was ineffective was an order which was illegal and hence not operative. It was held by the authority that the provisions of Section 32M(1) would not apply to the circumstances of this case because the instalments were agreed to mutually between the parties and the same were not ordered under Section 32K of the Tenancy Act. Against this order an appeal was filed but the same was dismissed on July 31, 1964. The Deputy Collector in appeal supported the order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal although the appellate authority was of the opinion that an error was committed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in condoning the delay in making the application for restoration. However, the appeal being dismissed, an application in revision was made before the Revenue Tribunal by the landlord.

(3.) MR . Shah for the petitioner -landlord contended that the provisions of Section 32M(2) as amended would not act retrospectively. He referred me to the normal rule of construction of statutes that unless specifically laid down by the statute, an amendment acts prospectively and not retrospectively. He also referred me to a decision of Mr. J.R. Dhurandhar, the then President of the Tribunal dated November 5, 1965. In his judgment the President held that Section 32M(2) as amended does not act retrospectively. Mr. Shah therefore urged that since the order passed by the authority was passed as early as in 1964, the amendment which was brought on the statute book in 1965 would not affect that order.