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

1. Land bearing Survey No. 1052 admeasuring 16 acres situated within the revenue limits of Village Sonai Taluka Nawasa Distt. Ahmendnagar, belonged to Tarachand Chopra Janardhan, the father of the respondent was admittedly the tenant of this land on April 1, 1957. Sec. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended from time to time provided that on the 1st day of April, 1957 styled as the tillers day every tenant shall subject to other provisions of the section and the provisions of the next succeeding sections be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the same date the land held by him as a tenant if other conditions of the section are satisfied. Thus by operation of law, Janardhan, who was the tenant of the land on the tillers day became the deemed purchaser thereof. Landlord Tarachand died on August 12, 1959. Before his death, landlord Tarachand had executed a will and bequeathed the suit land to Ashoklal Gugale who was petitioner No. 5 before the High Court Acting upon the will of Tarachand, Ashoklal got his name mutated in the revenue record in respect of suit land in his favour as owner. On the date of mutation, Ashoklal was a minor. A Sec.imposes a statutory duty on the Agricultural l ands Tribunal (Tribunal for short) to commence enquiry for determining the price of the land which is the subject matter of compulsory purchase. The Tribunal is required to issue notice to (a) all tenants who u/s 32 are deemed to have purchased the lands (b) all landlords of such lands and (c) all other persons interested therein to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. Pursuant to such notice when the parties appeared before the Tribunal it was claimed on behalf of landlord that Ashoklal , the recorded owner was a minor and therefore the sale was postponed u/sThe Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction in not noticing the obvious fact that the relevant date on which compulsory sale takes place is April 1, 1957 and on that date Tarachand Chopra the landlord was the recorded owner and he was under no disability as envisaged by sec.and therefore the sale had become effective and could not be postponed u/sHowever, the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by misstating an obvious irrelevant fact that as recorded owner was a minor, compulsory sale was postponed as envisaged by sec.It appears that the Tribunal again commenced proceedings in the year 1967 u/sand concluded the proceedings by its order dated July 13, 1967 repeating the jurisdictional errors and thereby failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. In the meantime, minor landlord through his next friend commenced proceedings in Case No. 36 of 1967 in the court of Tenancy Avail Karkoon having jurisdiction in the area for recovery of possession from tenant Janardhan who had become a deemed purchaser, u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act Sec. 14 enables t he landlord to recover possession if tenant commits default in payment of rent for certain number of years. The Tenancy Avail Karkoon entertained the petition which it had no jurisdiction because there was no subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between Ashoklal and Janardhan as Janardhan had already become deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957. However, the Tenancy Aval Karkoon taking note of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal holding that the date of compulsory sale was postponed directed possession to be handed over to the landlord holding that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent.2. Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant at this stage pointed out that in the proceeding u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act, the tenant Janardan had made a Statement on October 5,he had no objection to handing over possession of the land to A the land to the landlord as he was old and could not cultivate the land persona lly. On the same day, surprisingly the Tenancy Aval Karkoon also recorded the statement of present respondent that in the lifetime of his father Janardhan he had no title to the land involved in the dispute. It appears that the Tenancy Aval Kar koon made the order dated oct. 6, 1967 evicting Janardhan from the land on the footing that he was a tenant liable to pay rent and had committed defaults. This wholly null and void order enabled the minor landlord to sell the land by a registered deed o n Nov. 13, 1967 to the petitioner No. 1 and one Haribhav and the latter in turn transferred his interest in favour of other petitioners,Misled by the two orders of the Tribunal holding that the sale was postponed Janardhan served a notice on oct. 6, 1971 as envisaged by sec.that as the landlord has attained majority he is entitled to purchase the land and that the price of land be determined. Presumably, pursuant to this notice, the Tribunal commenced proceedings under sectionsof the Tenancy Act for determining the purchase price. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners transferees from Ashoklal before the Tribunal that as Janardhan has already handed over possession to Ashoklal he ha d no subsisting interest in the land and therefore he had no right to purchase the land u/sand that the proceedings be dropped. This contention found favour with the Tribunal which overlooked the legal position that Janardhan had become the deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957. Janardhan died on November 29, 1976 leaving respondent his son as the sole heir. After the death of Janardhan an enquiry was commenced to ascertain whether Janardhan the deceased tenant had already become the deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957 and that all the subsequent proceedings were Abington void. There were some proceedings in between u/s 84 which are hardly relevant The Tribunal went into the matter in depth, examined all proviso orders and finally reached an affirmative conclusion that on April 1, 1957 Tarachand was the recorded landlord and being under no disability and Janardhan being tenant of the land, by operation of law, Janardhan become the deemed purchaser and all subsequent proceedings were null, void and non est. The Tribunal accordingly determined the purchase price. The present petitioners after unsuccessfully appealing to the Assistant Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal u/s 76 of the Tenancy Act, reached the High Court under Article 2 27,A parallel proceeding was initiated by the respondent u/s 84 of the Tenancy Act for recovery of possession which was illegally taken from him. The Assistant Collector held that occupation of the suit land by the petitioners was contrary to the provisions of law as Janardhan had already become the deemed purchaser and no title could be acquired by the petitioners from the sale by Ashoklal and therefore the respondent is entitled to recover possession. The direction was issued to hared over possession to the respondent. This order was confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision as per its judgment dated July 16, 1973. Two petitions were moved byin the High Court of Bombay against two orders one of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in a proceeding u/sand another in a proceeding u/s 84 against the present respondent. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by a common judgment dismissed bottle the petitions of the petitioners holding that as Janardhan had become the deemed purchaser on the tillers day i.e. April 1, 1957 all subsequent proceedings u/swere ab initio void and without jurisdiction and nullity is the eyes of law. The High Court also held that the petitioners acquired no title under the purported sale by Ashoklal because Ashoklal had no title to the land have receiving the purchase price from Janardhan or his heir as determined u/sThe High Court accordingly dismissed both the petitions with costs. Hence these two appeals by special leave.

Reasoning:
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.