Case: Navinchandra Ramanlal Vs. Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr

Tribunal. If the tenant commits default in the payment of such price either in lump or by installments as determined by the Tribunal, s. 32M declares the purchase to be ineffective but in that event the land shall then be at the disposal of the Collector to be disposed of by him in the manner provided therein. Here also the purchase continues to be effective as from the tillers day until such default is committed and there is no question of a conditional purchase or sale taking place between the landlord and tenant. The title to the land which was vested originally in the landlord passes to the tenant on the tillers day or the alternative period prescribed in that behalf. This title is defeasible only in the event of the tenant failing to appear or making a statement that he is not willing to purchase the land or committing default in payment of the price thereof as determined by the Tribunal. The tenant gets a vested interest in the land defeasible only in either of those cases and it cannot therefore be said t hat the title of land lord to the land is suspended for any period definite or indefinite". 9. If the effect of the land being governed by s. 32 on tillers day is to transfer the title of the landlord to the tenant by operation of law, defeasible only in the event of tenant declining to purchase the land or committing default in payment of price as determined by the Tribunal, the next question is: if the land is subsequently brought within the Municipal Corporation area which area enjoys the exemption under s. 88(1)(b), would the vested title be vested: 10. This question can be answered shortly by referring to the amended s. 43C and s. 88(1) (b) with its proviso. both of which clearly assert that the exemption granted under s. 88(1)(b) by a Notification issued by the Government would enure for the benefit of the land which was within the Municipal Corporation area on 1st August, 1956 and in no case the additional area which may be included within the Municipal Corporation area after 1st August, 1956 would enjoy the exemption granted by the Notification unless a fresh Notification is issued. Admittedly, since 14th February, 1957 no fresh Notification is issued. The land bearing Survey No. 165 was not within the Municipal Corporation area either on 14th February, 1957, the day on which exemption was granted, or on 1st August, 1956 when Bombay Act VIII of 1956 was put into operation or on 1st April, 1957, the tillers day, when title to land would stand transferred to the tenant by sheer operation of law without anything more. Therefore, the Notification dated 14th February, 1957 would not cover the land which was at the date of the issue of the Notification not included in Ahmadabad Municipal Corporation area. Subsequent extension of the area of Municipal Corporation would not enjoy the benefit of exemption in view of the proviso to s. 88(1) (b) and the opening words of s. 43C both of which clearly recite that the exemption would apply to the land included in the Municipal Corporation area on 1st August, 1956, the day on which Bombay Act 13 of 1956 came into force, and not to any subsequently added area to the area of Municipal Corporation. Land bearing Survey No. 165 was brought within the Municipal Corporation area after 1st August, 1956 and, therefore, the Notification dated 14th February, 1957 would not cover such added or extended area and there would be no exemption under that Notification for the land in the extended area.If the land bearing Survey No. 165 does not enjoy the benefit of exemption under s. 88(1) (b) and it being agricultural land in respect of which the respondent was tenant on the tillers day, the respondent has, by operation of law, become the owner and is a deemed purchaser. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal would have to proceed with the enquiry to determine the price as required by s. 32G. 11. Mr. Shroff, however, contended that the decisions of this Court in Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli, (1) and Stdram Narsappa Kamble v. Sholapur Borough Municipality, (2) would clearly indicate that whenever a Notification under s. 88(1) (b) is issued by the appropriate Government granting exemption to any area from the operation of the Tenancy Act for the purposes mentioned in the sub-section, such exemption will apply retrospectively and no vested right under the Tenancy Act 1948 or eve n one under the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, could be claimed by any one. It is not necessary to examine this contention because subsequent to the later decision in Sidram Narsappa Kamble (supra) the Tenancy Act of 1948 was amended by Gujarat Act 36 of 1965 making it abundantly clear that if there is any Notification exempting any area from the operation of the Tenancy Act issued by the appropriate Government under s. 88(1) (b), the exemption would enure for the benefit of that area included in t he Municipal Corporation as on 1st August, 1956 and in the absence of a fresh Notification such exemption would not be available to the extended or area added to the area of Municipal Corporation and this amendment is made effective notwithstanding any judgment, order or decision of the Court or Tribunal to the contrary. Presumably, in order to combat the effect of some judgments which purported to lay down that the exemption once granted would apply to any area that may be included in the Corporation area at a date much later to the date of issue of the Notification, the amendment was made. Accordingly, law having undergone a substantive amendment bearing on the subject, the ratio in the decision of Mohonlal Chunilal Kothari and Sidram Narsappa Kamble (supra) which turned upon the construction of s. 88(1) (b) as it stood at the relevant time, would not be of any assistance.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The contention raised by Mr. Shroff would have necessitated examination of the scheme of the various provisions of the Tenancy Act as has been done by the High Court but in our opinion the High Court unnecessarily undertook this exercise wholly overlooking and by passing two important amendments introduced in the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act of 1948, viz., 43C and 88(1) both of which were in force at the time when the petition was heard and upon proper construction both amendments being retroactive in their operation from the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1956 which came into force on 1st August, 1956 would have clinched the issue. Therefore, it is not necessary to examine the contention from the angle from which the High Court has done but the contention of Mr. Shroff can be disposed of by a mere reference to the two relevant provisionsThe land bearing Survey No. 165 was not within the Municipal Corporation area either on 14th February, 1957, the day on which exemption was granted, or on 1st August, 1956 when Bombay Act VIII of 1956 was put into operation or on 1st April, 1957, the tillers day, when title to land would stand transferred to the tenant by sheer operation of law without anything more. Therefore, the Notification dated 14th February, 1957 would not cover the land which was at the date of the issue of the Notification not included in Ahmadabad Municipal Corporation area. Subsequent extension of the area of Municipal Corporation would not enjoy the benefit of exemption in view of the proviso to s. 88(1) (b) and the opening words of s. 43C both of which clearly recite that the exemption would apply to the land included in the Municipal Corporation area on 1st August, 1956, the day on which Bombay Act 13 of 1956 came into force, and not to any subsequently added area to the area of Municipal Corporation. Land bearing Survey No. 165 was brought within the Municipal Corporation area after 1st August, 1956 and, therefore, the Notification dated 14th February, 1957 would not cover such added or extended area and there would be no exemption under that Notification for the land in the extended area.If the land bearing Survey No. 165 does not enjoy the benefit of exemption under s. 88(1) (b) and it being agricultural land in respect of which the respondent was tenant on the tillers day, the respondent has, by operation of law, become the owner and is a deemed purchaser. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal would have to proceed with the enquiry to determine the price as required by s. 32GIt is not necessary to examine this contention because subsequent to the later decision in Sidram Narsappa Kamble (supra) the Tenancy Act of 1948 was amended by Gujarat Act 36 of 1965 making it abundantly clear that if there is any Notification exempting any area from the operation of the Tenancy Act issued by the appropriate Government under s. 88(1) (b), the exemption would enure for the benefit of that area included in t he Municipal Corporation as on 1st August, 1956 and in the absence of a fresh Notification such exemption would not be available to the extended or area added to the area of Municipal Corporation and this amendment is made effective notwithstanding any judgment, order or decision of the Court or Tribunal to the contrary. Presumably, in order to combat the effect of some judgments which purported to lay down that the exemption once granted would apply to any area that may be included in the Corporation area at a date much later to the date of issue of the Notification, the amendment was made. Accordingly, law having undergone a substantive amendment bearing on the subject, the ratio in the decision of Mohonlal Chunilal Kothari and Sidram Narsappa Kamble (supra) which turned upon the construction of s. 88(1) (b) as it stood at the relevant time, would not be of any assistance.