Special Leave Petition Civil No 3292 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 791987 of the Bombay High Court in LPA No 124 of 1985
VA Bobde Juggal Kishore and AK Sanghi for the Petitioner
AM Khanwilkar and AS Bhasme for the Respondents
This application under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench dated 7th September
Before the Division Bench the land holder the petitioner herein had challenged the dismissal of the writ petition at the stage of admission by the learned Single Judge confirming the order of the learned sub Divisional Officer Amravati dated 28th February 1984 and also the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur dated 26th December 1984 declaring very large areas of land to be in excess of the PG NO 272 ceiling area permissible to be held by the petitioner
The case of the petitioner is that his family unit as defined under section 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land Ceiling on Holdings Act 1961 hereinafter called the Act  consisted of himself his wife two sons and a minor daughter
His further case was that during the period between 2691970 and 2101975 he did not hold any land of his own
His wife Vidyavati was holding during the said period certain land particulars whereof are not necessary
His son who was minor was also holding during the said period certain other plots of land
His another son a minor was also holding some more land
Hence it appears that the petitioner s case was that his family Unit was holding land to the extent of 50 Acres 73 Gunthas and there was no surplus land in the holding of his family Unit
The petitioner s further contention was that his son had leased out to the respondent certain area of land
Similarly there were properties leased out to the tenant
It appears that the total land holdings as per the sub Divisional Officer Amravati was 54 acres and out of remaining 11228 acres the petitioner was allowed to retain 54 acres
and the other 5828 acres of land was declared as the surplus land
This finding was maintained in appeal by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur and was challenged before the High Court
The learned Single Judge dismissed the application
It was contended that the said land had been transferred to the various tenants under the Bombay Tenancy  Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act l958 hereinafter called the Bombay Act in the name of the respective tenants by the order of the Tenancy Tahsildar
The Bombay Act was an Act to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural land and sites used for allied pursuits and it was reiterated in the Preamble that it was with a view to bringing the status and the rights of the tenants as far as possible in line with those prevailing in certain other parts of the State and it was expedient in the interest of the general public to regulate the transfer of rights in agricultural land
According to the petitioner
the order of the tenancy authorities conferring upon tenants the right of statutory purchaser and the Bombay Act had become final and these were binding on the Ceiling Authorities who had to decide the ceiling proceedings
It wastherefore submitted that having regard to the effect of these findings the Ceiling Authorities the sub Divisional Officer as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal should have excluded the tenanted lands in possession of the respective tenants from PG NO 273 the total holdings of the petitioner
Similar contentions were raised before the sub Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur
The petitioner
the tenants Nandkishore Bajaj and Talathi were examined as witnesses
The learned sub Divisional Officer held that the order passed by the Tenancy Courts conferring tenancy rights and issuing certificates in favour of the tenants was not justified and clearly illegal
Thus on appreciation of evidence the claim of tenancy was negatived by the sub Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
The High Court held that both the Courts were the Courts of facts and gave their findings
The findings made by these Courts were within their jurisdiction to find and to implement the Ceiling Act
According to the Division Bench of the High Court the learned Single Judge was right
It was submitted before us as well as before the High Court that in view of sub section 2 of Section 100 of the Bombay Act the Tenancy Tahsildar had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy
Section 100 of the Bombay Act so far material for the present purposes provides as follows 100
for the purpose of this Act
the following shall be the duties and functions to be performed by the Tahsildar 1 to decide whether a person is an agriculturist 2 to decide whether a person is or was at any time in the past
a tenant a protected lessee or an occupancy tenant Section 124 of the Bombay Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with any question covered by section 100
The Section runs as follows 124
l No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settledecide or deal with any question including a question whether a person is or was at any time in the past a tenant and whether the ownership of any land is transferred to
and vests in a tenant under section 46 or section 49 A or section 49 B which is by or under this Act required to be settled decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar or Tribunal a Manager the Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in appeal or revision or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control
PG NO 274 2 No order of the Tahsildar the Tribunal the Manager the Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal or the State Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court
Explanation
For the purposes of this section a Civil Court shall include a Mamlatdar s Court constituted under the Mamlatdars  Court Act 1906
 It is therefore submitted on behalf of the petitioner that determination of the question of tenancy by the Ceiling Authorities was without jurisdiction
The High Court held that in the facts of this case it was not the Ceiling Authority had to determine the land holdings of the petitioner
incidentally where a transfer is made by the landholder creating a tenancy there whether the transfer was made bona fide or made in anticipation to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act is a question which falls for determination squarely by the Ceiling Authorities to give effect to or implement the Ceiling Act
In that adjudication it was an issue to decide whether tenancy right was acquired by the tenant of the petitioner
But here before the Ceiling Authorities the adjudication was whether the transfer to the tenantassuming that such transfer was there was bona fide or made in anticipation to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act
This latter question can only be gone into in appropriate proceedings by the Ceiling Authorities
Unless the Acts with the intention of implementing various socio economic plans are read in such complimentary manner the operation of the different Acts in the same field would create contradiction and would become impossible
It is therefore necessary to take a constructive attitude in interpreting provisions of these types and determine the main aim of the particular Act in question for adjudication before the Court
In our opinion having regad to the Preamble to the Act of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Ceiling on Holdings Act 1961 which was enacted for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause b  c of Article 39 of our Constitution and in particular but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing declaration to ensure that the ownership and control of the agricultural resources of the community are so distributed as to best subserve the common good and having regard to the purpose of the Bombay Act it was open to the Ceiling Authorities to determine whether there was in fact a genuine tenancy
PG NO 275 In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in the approach it made
In the ceiling proceedings it has been held that the transfer to the tenant was not bona fide and was done in anticipation of the Ceiling Act
We find no ground to interfere with the Order of the High Court
There is no merit in this application
Hence it fails and is dismissed
APJ Petition dismissed


Summary:
The husband of respondent No l sought eviction of the appellants tenants
The suit was decreed in his favour along with money decree for arrears of rent and damages
During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were substituted as respondents
Some of his children who were minor were placed under the guardianship of respondent No 1
Consequent to a petition by the parties a compromise decree was passed setting aside the entire decree
The respondents thereafter challenged the compromise decree
The trial court dismissed the suit
On appeal the first appellate court reversed the decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellants that as a consideration for the compromise they were giving up their right to claim costs which might have been decreed by the appellate court in case of their success on merits
The respondents  case was that the guardian of the minors was guilty of gross negligence in entering into the compromise by failing to take into consideration the interest of the minors
Dismissing the appeal HELD The decision of the courts below does not call for any interference
The compromise decree is fit to be set aside on the ground of gross negligence
199F 199Cl The compromise was one sided whereby the minors were giving up their right under the trial court s decree both in respect of eviction as well as arrears of rent and damages
In view of the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was essential for the Court to have PG NO 196 PG NO 197 granted permission to the guardian to enter into the compromise only after considering all the relevant circumstances
198F 198C D The earlier civil appeal is restored to its file before the Additional District Judge for disposal in accordance with law
l99G