Case: Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande Vs. Shanker Singh &amp; Ors

resumed would have been three family holdings and that also if he could prove that he bona fide required it for personal cultivation and was mainly dependent on the income of that land for his maintenance. The tenant was given the right to purchase the land in his tenancy from the landlord in accordance with Section 43. If he did not take steps to acquire the same he still became a statutory owner of that land by virtue of Section 46 with effect from April 1, 1961. Therefore even if the tenant did not apply for purchase of land held by him he became an owner with effect from April 1, 1961 subject to any other conditions as were laid down in the provisions of the Act. This vesting of ownership in the tenant was not affected by subsequent enactment of sub-section (14-A) by Act 2 of 1962 which did not have retrospective operation. 6. Thus, according to the tribunal, even if respondent No. 1 did not apply under the relevant provisions of the Act for purchasing the land comprising his tenancy he became an owner thereof by virtue of the provisions of Section 46 (1) and no tenancy rights were left which could be deemed to have been surrendered under Section 14-A which came into existence after April 1, 1961. Although the provisions of Section 42 (c), as they stood before the amendment effected by Act 2 of 1962, were not pressed at any prior stage a contention was raised before the High Court that in accordance therewith the appellant should have been left an area not less than one family holding on independent calculation with respect to the land held by each tenant. The High Court repelled this contention by saying that it was not possible to accept such a construction of Section 42 (c).As there was no proceeding pending for termination of the tenancy of respondent No. 1 the conclusion of the tribunal that respondent No. 1 had become a statutory owner on April 1, 1961 was upheld. 7. Before us an attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to reiterate the contention based on the provisions of Section 42 (c) as it existed before the amendment made by Act 2 of 1962. It was urged that one of the most important conditions of the right to purchase was that the extent of the land remaining with the landlord after the purchase by the tenant (whether to cultivate personally or otherwise) shall not be less than one family holding. On December 30, 1958 the appellant had no land whatever with him in his possession. He was, therefore, entitled to retain an area to the extent of one family holding which came to 26 acres. By virtue of the provisions of Section 42 (c) respondent No. 1 was not entitled to purchase the entire land comprising his tenancy as under Section 46 (1) the ownership of land stood transferred to the tenant only if he was entitled to purchase from landlord such land. As this condition was not fulfilled in the present case owing to the provisions of Section 42 (c) it followed that on April 1, 1961 the ownership of the land in question was not transferred to respondent No, 1 under Section 46 (1). This situation continued upto March 1, 1962 when the amending Act came into force. Sub-section (14-A) of Section 43 was one of the new provisions inserted by the Amending Act. Respondent No. 1, could, therefore, exercise his right of purchase only under Section 41 read with Section 43 (14-A). As he failed to exercise his right under those provisions the entire land in his tenancy must be deemed to have been surrendered to the landlord, namely, the appellant before April 1,1963 which was the relevant date for the purpose of the operation of Sec. 49-A. 8. We are unable to accept any of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant so far as the effect of Section 42 (c), as it stood before its deletion by the amending Act is concerned, it was neither referred to nor relied upon before any of the revenue authorities including the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The application which was filed by the appellant was not founded on any facts or pleas relevant to Section 42 (c). The contention as raised leads to unusual and strange results. If the appellant was entitled to an area of 26 acres it is difficult to see how he could choose only respondent No, 1 and leave out the other tenants for the purpose of retaining land not less than one family holding. It is significant that the appellant had filled applications on similar lines against two other tenants also. After the decision of the tribunal had been given he did not pursue the matter further which means that he abandoned his claim with regard to the lands in their tenancies. Respondent No. 1 has a holding with an area of little over 11 acres. It is incomprehensible how the appellant could seek to satisfy the requirements of S. 42 (c) by demanding the entire area from respondent No. 1 alone. We, however, do not wish to express any final opinion on the scope and ambit of Section 42 (c) because we are satisfied that the appellant was not entitled to raise any condition based on the aforesaid provision as no foundation was laid for doing so in the pleadings or at any prior stage except before the High Court. We concur in the view of the tribunal that respondent. No. 1 became a statutory owner of the land in his tenancy by virtue of Section 46 (1) of the Act with effect from April 1, 1961 even though he did not take steps to purchase that land from the appellant under Section 43. The operation of Section 46 (1) could not be affected by the subsequent insertion of sub-section (14-A) in Section 43 which did not have retrospective operation.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]8. We are unable to accept any of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant so far as the effect of Section 42 (c), as it stood before its deletion by the amending Act is concerned, it was neither referred to nor relied upon before any of the revenue authorities including the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The application which was filed by the appellant was not founded on any facts or pleas relevant to Section 42 (c). The contention as raised leads to unusual and strange results. If the appellant was entitled to an area of 26 acres it is difficult to see how he could choose only respondent No, 1 and leave out the other tenants for the purpose of retaining land not less than one family holding. It is significant that the appellant had filled applications on similar lines against two other tenants also. After the decision of the tribunal had been given he did not pursue the matter further which means that he abandoned his claim with regard to the lands in their tenancies. Respondent No. 1 has a holding with an area of little over 11 acres. It is incomprehensible how the appellant could seek to satisfy the requirements of S. 42 (c) by demanding the entire area from respondent No. 1 alone. We, however, do not wish to express any final opinion on the scope and ambit of Section 42 (c) because we are satisfied that the appellant was not entitled to raise any condition based on the aforesaid provision as no foundation was laid for doing so in the pleadings or at any prior stage except before the High Court. We concur in the view of the tribunal that respondent. No. 1 became a statutory owner of the land in his tenancy by virtue of Section 46 (1) of the Act with effect from April 1, 1961 even though he did not take steps to purchase that land from the appellant under Section 43. The operation of Section 46 (1) could not be affected by the subsequent insertion of sub-section (14-A) in Section 43 which did not have retrospective operation.