Case: Patel Sureshbhai Jashbhai Vs. Patel Satabhai Mathurbhai

Appellant Sureshbhai is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 21 situated at Village ode, Taluka Anand, District Kaira in Gujarat State. One Nathabhai Zaveribhai and the present respondent were recorded as tenants on the tillers day i.e. 1st April, 1957. Section 32 ofthe Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act for short) provided that on the 1st day of April, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the tillers day) every tenant shall subject to the 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 tenant. Section 32G provided for the follow up action of the compulsory purchase that ensues by the operation of sec. 32. Section 32G thus envisages the determination of the price in accordance with the various provisions of the Act, of the land deemed to have been purchased by the tenant on the tillers day and the methodology of its payment. In order to determine the price the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (Tribunal for short) has to serve a notice in the prescribed manner 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. Sub-sec. 2 provides that the Tribunal shall record in the prescribed manner, the statement of the tenant whether he is or is not willing to purchase the land held by him as a tenant. Sub-sec. 3 provides that where tenant fails to appear or makes a statement that he is not willing to purchase the land, the Tribunal shall by an order in writing declare that such a person is not willing to purchase the land and that the purchase is ineffective. The remaining sub-secs. provide the manner and method of determining the price. The Tribunal having jurisdiction in the area in which the land involved in the dispute is situated issued notice to Nathabhai Zaveribhai and the present appellant as well as the landlord of the land u/s 32G. It appears both the tenants i.e. Nathabhai Zaveribhai and the present respondent refused to accept notice to remain present and when summons was served by substituted service both of them did not remain present The Tribunal accordingly declared the sale ineffective as provided by sec. 32G(3). The Tribunal accordingly made its order annexure dated July 20, 1962 declaring that the sale is ineffective. Subsequently the present respondent made an application u/s 32 PP requesting the Tribunal to determine the price of the land deemed to have been purchased by him being Survey No. 21 of Village ode on April 1, 1957. It may be clarified that sec. 32-PP was designed to give a further opportunity to the tenant who had failed to appear before the Tribunal which led to the sale being held ineffective, to purchase the land. This application was resisted by the appellant-landlord The Tribunal held that the present respondent was not a tenant of the suit land and Nathabhai Zaveribhai was the only tenant who has not made an application u/s 32 PP and therefore the present respondent is not entitled to be declared a deemed purchaser and accordingly it is not necessary to determine the purchase price. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector. This appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Collector concurring with the findings of the Tribunal. The respondent moved a revision petition u/s 76 of the Tenancy Act in the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. A learned member of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal held that once the notice was issued to person who is shown to have purchased the land u/s 32 and if the sale is held ineffective because of his absence under sec. 32-G, in a subsequent proceeding u/s 32 PP it is not open to the landlord to challenge that such a person was not tenant. Alternatively, on the merits it was held that the present respondent was tenant of the land on April 1, 1957 and he has become a deemed purchaser and the Tribunal was bound to determine the price. The matter was accordingly remitted to the Tribunal. Present appellant-landlord moved a petition under Art. 227 in the High Court of Gujarat which was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave.It is not in dispute that the notice u/s 32G was issued to the present respondent and Nathabhai Zaveribhai with a view to determining the price of land bearing Surv ey No. 21. The notice was also served upon the appellant-landlord. In a proceeding for determining the price, the necessary parties are the landlord and the tenant as the tenant becomes the owner of the land by operation of law. A statutory duty is cast on the Tribunal to proceed to determine the purchase price. But as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sri Ram Ram Narain. Medhi v. The State of Bombay(1), that"the title of the landlord to the land passes immediately to the tenant o n the tillers day and there is a completed purchase or sale thereof as between the landlord and the tenant. The title of the land which was vested originally in the landlord passes to the tenant on the tillers day and 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 commit default in payment of the price thereto as determined by the Tribunal."

Reasoning: Mr. Bobde contended that once the view of the Tribunal is not in consonance with law the only course open to us is to remit the matter to the Tribunal. We are not inclined to accept the submission for the obvious reason that there is material on record that the respondent was a tenant on the relevant date. Apart from a piece of circumstantial evidence that a notice was sent to the respondent both by a registered post and service was sought to be effected by substituted service on the basis of tenancy record, his name appears in the record of tenancy for certain years. Further the landlord has not put on record his statement in the proceeding u/s 32G whether he disputed the status. The landlord did not take any step under sec. 15 after the sale was declared ineffective. Nathabhai Zaverbhai who according to the landlord was the only tenant of land was not examined by the landlord. The cumulative effect of these circumstances would affirmatively show that the respondent was a tenant and if he was a tenant on the relevant date, the Tribunal was right in directing that the purchase price be determined.This is the only point involved in this appeal.