Case: Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Others Vs. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Another

nullity.The attempt to overcome this position by urging that the order was erroneous was rightly repelled by the High Court holding that the orders were null and void, proceeding on an erroneous assumption of jurisdictional fact that the recorded owner was a minor on the tillers day. When a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction clutches at a jurisdiction by ignoring a statutory provision and its consequences in law on the status of parties or by a decision wholly unwarranted, with regard to the jurisdictional fact, its decision is a nullity and can be set up in collateral proceeding. The Tribunal clutched at a jurisdiction not vested in it and in such a situation it cannot be disputed that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain any A proceeding purporting to be between landlord and tenant on the erroneous assumption that tenant was still a tenant though he had long since become the deemed purchaser. The tenant has ceased to be a tenant much prior to the orders passed by the Tribunal on April 24, 1961 and July 13, 1967 holding that the date of compulsory purchase was postponed. The compulsory purchase by the operation of law had taken place as early as April 1, 1957 and that legal position cannot be wished away.6. Mr. Lalit, however, contended that the statement of Janardhan in the proceeding u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act stating that he had become old and was unable to cultivate the land and he is willing to hand over possession would estop the respondent from contending to the contrary. It was further urged that respondent himself was present on the date on which Janardhan gave his statement on October S, 1967 and he concurred with the statement of Janardhan. We are not unaware of the landed gentry exercising such influence over the tenants that in the absence of le gal literacy they may make any statement contrary to their legally protected interest. A measure of agrarian reform cannot be permitted to be defeated by such devious means of the landlords. However apart from ignorance of his position assuming that Janardhan relinquished his right as tenant, landlord Ashoklal was nontheless not entitled to recover possession because, when Janardhan, the deemed purchaser agreed to hand over possession subject to the provision of sec. IS, the land would be at the disposal of Collector under sec. 32 P. Landlord even in such a situation is not entitled to be restored to possession without bringing his case under sec. 15 which appears not to be the case of landlord. And look at the bon a fides of the landlord. Ashoklal as soon as he managed to obtain wholly void order for possession, managed to transfer the lands to the petitioners within a span of less than 2 weeks. It would thus appear that even Ashoklal and his nex t friend must be presumably aware of the void character of the order and therefore posthaste with a view to thwarting any further legal proceeding and confuse Janardhan, Ashoklal through his next friend managed to transfer the land to the petitio ners and let the petitioners fight the deemed purchaser. A measure whereby tenant was to be made the owner of the land cannot be permitted to be defeated by such jugglery of orders by low-level revenue officers who hardly knew what they we re doing. Look at the lack of knowledge of law of the Tribunal. While overlooking the relevant date, and it took into account the subsequent date which was wholly irrelevant and impermissible. Though landlord Tarachand had died much after 1. 4.1957 in proceeding u/s 32-G minor Ashoklal whose name was mutated on death of A Tarachand, the authority declared the sale having been postponed even though statute had already operated and sale taken place. Can a statutory Tribunal charged with a duty to implement the law betray such total lack of knowledge so as to be counter-productive ? Same is the case with the decision of Tenancy Aval Karkoon. A proceeding u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act, started on the footing that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted should have been thrown out at the threshold because a decade back the then tenant Janardhan had become the deemed purchaser. Therefore these orders were wholly null and void and hence non est and cannot thwart subsequent proceedings. The nullity can be set up in subsequent proceedings.Janardhan was deprived of his possession by an order which had no legal sanction. He was deprived of possession on the footing that he w as a tenant ignoring and overlooking the statutory event that he had become the owner. Even when the Legislature passed such a revolutionary measure its knowledge was not transmitted to the persons for whose benefit the measure was enacted an d there was no awakening to ones right. Undoubtedly, a communication gap and for want of legal literacy Janardhan was taken on a joy ride and was illegally made to part with possession. Subsequently everyone realised the blunder committed b y them and therefore when the proceedings started on the notice given by Janardhan, the Tribunal determined the price. Appeal of the petitioners to Assistant Collector failed, revision petition to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at the instance of the petitioners failed so also the writ petition u/s 227 of the petitioners failed. All authorities concurrently held that Janardhan had become the owner and the Tribunal was right in determining the price.The authority u/s 84 held that petitioners were not entitled to retain possession as their occupation was contrary to the provisions of the Tenancy Act and they had acquired no title to the land by the purported sale by Ashoklal. The direction for restoring possess ion to Janardhan was rightly given. A revision petition and a writ petition to the High Court at the instance of the petitioners failed.7. We find that the High Court was right in rejecting both the A petitions.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]It is an admitted position that on April 1, 1957 Tarachand was the landlord and Janardhan was the tenant. Tarachan d landlord was under no disability as envisaged by sec.Therefore on April 1, 1957 Janardhan became deemed purchaser. and Mr. Lalit could not controvert this position.If Janardhan became the deemed purchaser on tillers day, the relationship of landlord and tenant between Tarachand and Janardhan came to be extinguished and no right could be claimed either by Tarachand or anyone claiming through him such as Ashoklal or the present purchasers on the footing that they are the Owners of the land on or after April 1, 1957. This basic fact is Acombined effect of sec.and 32 would show that where the landlord is under no disability as envisaged by sec.the tenant of such landlord by operation of law would become the deemed purchaser but where the landlord is of a class or category as set out in sec.such a s a minor, a widow or a person subject to any mental or physical disability, the date of compulsory sale would be postponed as therein provided. Now, if Tarachand, the landlord was under no disability and he was alive on April 1, 1957 and he was the owner, his tenant Janardhan became the deemed purchaser. This conclusion, in our opinion, isattempt to overcome this position by urging that the order was erroneous was rightly repelled by the High Court holding that the orders were null and void, proceeding on an erroneous assumption of jurisdictional fact that the recorded owner was a minor on the tillers day. When a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction clutches at a jurisdiction by ignoring a statutory provision and its consequences in law on the status of parties or by a decision wholly unwarranted, with regard to the jurisdictional fact, its decision is a nullity and can be set up in collateral proceeding. The Tribunal clutched at a jurisdiction not vested in it and in such a situation it cannot be disputed that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain any A proceeding purporting to be between landlord and tenant on the erroneous assumption that tenant was still a tenant though he had long since become the deemed purchaser. The tenant has ceased to be a tenant much prior to the orders passed by the Tribunal on April 24, 1961 and July 13, 1967 holding that the date of compulsory purchase was postponed. The compulsory purchase by the operation of law had taken place as early as April 1, 1957 and that legal position cannot be wishedare not unaware of the landed gentry exercising such influence over the tenants that in the absence of le gal literacy they may make any statement contrary to their legally protected interest. A measure of agrarian reform cannot be permitted to be defeated by such devious means of the landlords. However apart from ignorance of his position assuming that Janardhan relinquished his right as tenant, landlord Ashoklal was nontheless not entitled to recover possession because, when Janardhan, the deemed purchaser agreed to hand over possession subject to the provision of sec. IS, the land would be at the disposal of Collector under sec. 32 P. Landlord even in such a situation is not entitled to be restored to possession without bringing his case under sec. 15 which appears not to be the case of landlord. And look at the bon a fides of the landlord. Ashoklal as soon as he managed to obtain wholly void order for possession, managed to transfer the lands to the petitioners within a span of less than 2when the Legislature passed such a revolutionary measure its knowledge was not transmitted to the persons for whose benefit the measure was enacted an d there was no awakening to ones right. Undoubtedly, a communication gap and for want of legal literacy Janardhan was taken on a joy ride and was illegally made to part with possession. Subsequently everyone realised the blunder committed b y them and therefore when the proceedings started on the notice given by Janardhan, the Tribunal determined the price. Appeal of the petitioners to Assistant Collector failed, revision petition to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at the instance of the petitioners failed so also the writ petition u/s 227 of the petitioners failed. All authorities concurrently held that Janardhan had become the owner and the Tribunal was right in determining the price.The authority u/s 84 held that petitioners were not entitled to retain possession as their occupation was contrary to the provisions of the Tenancy Act and they had acquired no title to the land by the purported sale by Ashoklal.