VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ORS.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1273, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Matter referred to larger bench
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1273
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
v.
ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11774 of 2018)
DECEMBER 14, 2018
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – s.32 as
amended by Act 15 of 1957  and ss.32F, 32G – Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969 – s.32(1)F(a) –
One ‘B’ was the landlord of the suit property – ‘B’ expired leaving
behind his widow as his legal heir and representative – Predecessor
of the appellants were tenants of ‘B’ prior to 1956-57 i.e. prior to
01.04.1957 (Tillers’ Day) – Proceedings for declaring the appellants
as purchaser u/s.32G were initiated against the landlady, since,
she was a widow, the proceedings were suspended during her
lifetime – Landlady expired on 07.05.1999, she had executed her
last Will in favour of respondent no.1 – In 2008, appellants came to
know that landlady had expired, they filed an application before
Addl. Tahsildar for fixing purchase price of the suit property u/
s.32G of the 1948 Act, which was allowed – However, Sub-
Divisional Officer, held that appellant ought to have issued notice
u/s.32F within the time as prescribed and no notice having been
issued within the time as prescribed, the appellants had lost right of
purchase – Order was confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal – Writ
petition filed against the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed –
On appeal, held: The ratio of Supreme Court judgments in Appa
Narsappa
Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan
cases support the respondents that the appellants had not exercised
their right to purchase u/s.32F(1) r/w. (1A) within the time prescribed,
thus, the right of purchase of the tenant was lost – However,
amendment in s.32(1)F(a) added by the 1969 Act expressly covered
a case of landlord who was minor and has attained majority –
Intimation by a minor landlord who has attained majority has been
made a statutory obligation of the landlord so that tenant may
exercise his right of purchase – The other two categories i.e. widow
or a person subject to mental or physical disability have not been
expressly included in amendment Act 1969 – The same benefit needs
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1273
1273
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1274                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
to be extended in other two categories – Further, the judgments in
three cases mentioned were rendered by the two-Judge Benches in
which cases the amendment made by 1969 Act were neither raised
or considered – Thus, ratio laid down in these judgments needs to
be reconsidered and explained – Following questions referred to
larger Bench for consideration – (i) Whether the object and purpose
of amendment made in Section 32F(1)(a) by Amendment Act of 1969
is also relevant and applicable for exercise of right to purchase by
a tenant of landlord who was widow or suffering from mental and
physical disability on Tillers’ Day; (ii) Whether the successor-in-
interest of a widow is also obliged to send an intimation to the tenant
of cessation of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise
his right of purchase; (ii) In the event the answer to above question
(1) or (2) is in affirmative, whether decision of this Court in Appa
Narsappa Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan
needs reconsideration and explanation.
Referring the matters to larger Bench, the Court
HELD: 1. The ratio of the Appa Narsappa Magdum (D)
Through LRS. v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar and Others, Sudam
Ganpat Kutwal, Power-of-Attorney-Holder of Shankar Sitaram
Bhosle v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (Dead) by LR. Maruti
Shankar Pachpute and Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan
Chavan (Dead) by LRS. and
Others, and other judgments can be
restated in following words: (i) For a landlord suffering from a
disability on the Tillers Day i.e. 01.04.1957, the deemed purchase
shall be suspended; (ii) Landlord suffering from a disability has a
right under Section 31(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948 to give notice of termination of tenancy and file
an application for possession; (iii) Under Section 31(3), a minor,
within one year from date on which he attains majority; a
successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date on
which her interest in the land ceases to exist; and landlord within
one year from the date on which his/her mental or physical
disability ceases to exist can also give an application for
termination of tenancy and possession; (iv) Under Section 32F
tenant has right to purchase where landlord was minor or a widow
or a person subject to mental or physical disability within one
year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is
entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31; (v) The tenant,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1275
in event, does not exercise his right of purchase within the period
as prescribed under Section 32F(1)(a), his/her right to purchase
shall be lost.  [Para 25][1295-A-F]
2. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that landlady
died on 07.05.1999 and within one year thereafter her successor-
in-title did not exercise his right under Section 31(3) and
thereafter within one year tenant has not given any intimation for
purchase as contemplated by Section 32(F).  The question to be
answered is as to whether in the above facts, Sub-Divisional
Officer, Revenue Tribunal as well as the High Court were right
in their conclusion that right of the tenant, i.e. the appellant has
lost, he having not issued any intimation for purchase of the land
within one year from expiry of the period as contemplated under
Section 31(3).  [Para 26][1295-E-H]
3. The ratio of this Court as noticed above especially in
judgments of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum, Sudam
Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan  clearly support the
respondents that the appellants having not exercised their right
to purchase under Section 32F(1) read with (1A) within the time
prescribed the right of purchase of the tenant is lost. But there is
one aspect of the matter which needs to be noted and has not
been considered in the above judgments rendered by
two-Judge Benches of this Court which we shall notice
hereinafter.   [Para 27][1296-A-C]
4.  The 1948 Act was amended by Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969. Section 32F was also
amended by the above Amendment Act, 1969. Amendment in
Section 32(1)F(a) added by Act No.49 of 1969 expressly covered
a case of landlord who was minor and has attained majority.
Intimation by a minor landlord who has attained majority has been
made a statutory obligation of the landlord so that tenant may
exercise his right of purchase. The other two categories which
are a widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability
have not been expressly included in the amendment incorporated
in Act 49 of 1969. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
amendment given in 1969 as well as the express provisions of
such amendment are for the purposes and object to enable the
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1276                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
tenant to exercise right of purchase. When for one category of
landlord i.e. minor it is mandated that he will intimate the tenant
after he attained the majority so that tenant may be enabled to
exercise the right of purchase, the same object has to be read in
two other categories of landlord that is the successor-in-title of a
widow and a landlord whose mental or physical disability has been
ceased. When the legislative object is to facilitate a tenant of a
disabled landlord after cessation of disability to exercise right of
purchase, the same benefit needs to be extended to other two
categories of disabled landlord.  [Paras 28, 32][1296-B-C;
1297-G-H; 1298-A-D]
Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. v. Akubai
Ganapati Nimbalkar and Others (1999) 4 SCC 443 ;
Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Others v. Kashinath Janardhan
Trade and Another (1983) 3 SCC 437 : [1983] 3 SCR
237 ; Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. v.
Akubai Ganpati Nimbalkar & others, (1994) 4 SCC
443 ; Sudam Ganpat Kutwal, Power-of-Attorney-Holder
of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle v. Shevantabai Tukaram
Gulumkar (Dead) by LR. Maruti Shankar Pachpute,
(2006) 7 SCC 200 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 682 ; Tukaram
Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan (Dead) by
LRS. And Others (2008) 9 SCC 358 : [2008] 13 SCR
508 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1999) 4 SCC 443
referred
Para 7
[1983] 3 SCR 237
referred
Para 10
(1994) 4 SCC 443
referred
Para 15
[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 682
referred
Para 18
[2008] 13 SCR 508
referred
Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11774
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2014 of the  High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 10304 of 2013.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.  11775-11798 of 2018.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1277
Aniruddha A. Joshi, Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, Advs. for the Appellants.
A. S. Bhasme, Pankaj Kr. Mishra, S. C. Mangle, Anand Landge,
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment
dated 01.08.2014 of High Court of Bombay dismissing a bunch of writ
petitions including those filed by the present appellants.
2. It shall be sufficient to notice the facts in Civil Appeal filed by
Vasant Ganpat Padave for deciding these appeals.
3. One Balwant Sawant was landlord of Survey No.92/2,
corresponding to new Survey No. 31 Hissa No.2/10, admeasuring about
0.01.3 H.R. at Village Padavewadi, Taluka & District Ratnagiri. Balwant
Sawant died on 10.05.1950 leaving behind Smt. Indirabai Balwant Sawant,
his widow as his legal heir and representative. Smt. Indirabai Balwant
Sawant, widow became the owner of the said property. Her  name was
mutated in the Revenue Records. Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948 was amended by Act 15 of 1957. Section 32 as amended
provided that on 01.04.1957 (Tillers Day), every tenant shall be deemed
to have purchased from the landlord free from all encumbrances the
land held by him as a tenant. The predecessor of the appellants were
tenants prior to 1956-1957, i.e. prior to 01.04.1957. The proceedings for
declaring the appellants as purchaser under Section 32G were initiated
during the lifetime of the
landlady, Smt. Indirabai Balwant Sawant but
the mutation entry No. 1341 recorded that since landlady Indirabai
Balwant Sawant is a widow, the proceedings as contemplated under
Section 32G are suspended. On 12.05.1975, Smt. Indirabai Balwant
Sawant executed last Will and Testament in favour of Anant Mahadev
Sawant, respondent No.1. Smt. Indirabai Balwant Sawant died on
07.05.1999. The name of respondent No.1 was mutated in the Revenue
Records on 29.02.2000, with regard to which no notice was issued to
the appellants, hence they were not aware of either the death of Indirabai
or mutation in favour of respondent No. 1.
4. In the year 2008, when the appellants came to know that
landlady has died and in her place name of respondent No.1 has been
mutated, they filed an application on 05.09.2008 before respondent No.2
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1278                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
- Additional Tahsiladar & A.L.T. Ratnagiri, Maharashtra for fixing the
purchase price under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “1948 Act”).
The respondent No.1 filed reply and opposed the said application. The
respondent No.2 allowed the application of appellants by order dated
09.09.2011. The respondent No.2 held that predecessors of appellants
were tenants prior to 1956-1957. Proceedings under Section 32G for
declaring the appellants as purchasers were initiated during the lifetime
of the landlady and the same were suspended on 08.01.1964 during the
lifetime of the landlady being a widow. Respondent No.2 fixed the
purchase price and directed the appellants to deposit the same to enable
issue of Sale Certificate in favour of the appellants. Aggrieved against
the order dated 09.09.2011, the respondent No.1 filed an appeal under
Section 74 of the 1948 Act before the respondent No.3- Sub-Divisional
Officer, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. The respondent No.3 allowed the appeal
vide its order dated 08.01.2013. The respondent No.3 held that the
appellant ought to have issued notice under Section 32F within the time
as prescribed and no notice having been issued within the time as
prescribed, the appellants have lost right of purchase.
5. The appellants aggrieved by the order of the Sub- Divisional
Officer filed a Revision Application
before the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal. There were other revisions filed by several other tenants who
were aggrieved by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer. The Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal by  a common order dated 20.04.2013 dismissed the
revisions and confirmed the order of Sub-Divisional Officer. The
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that applicants were under legal
obligation to give intimation expressing their desire to purchase within
time stipulated under Section 32F, which having not been given, no right
of purchase is available to applicants. Aggrieved against the judgment of
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, writ petitions were filed by the appellants
and several other similarly situated tenants. All the writ petitions were
dismissed by common judgment dated 01.08.2014 of the High Court,
against which judgment, these appeals have been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the impugned
order submits that by operation of law, i.e. by Section 32 as amended by
Act 15 of 1957, all tenants were deemed to have purchased from their
landlord the land held by them but in case of appellants, the said purchase
was suspended since on the Tillers Day, the landlady was a widow, who
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1279
had protection under Section 31(3) and with regard to whom the purchase
was suspended. It is submitted  that the landlady or her legal heirs having
never given any notice for termination of tenancy under Section 31(3),
after expiry of period as mentioned in Section 31(3), appellants shall be
treated to have purchased the land in his tenancy. It is submitted that
under Section 32F, notice of intention to purchase the land under tenancy
was given by the appellants as soon as they came to know about the
death of the landlady.   No notice having been   given by the legal heirs
of the landlady informing about her death or any intention to terminate
the tenancy, the appellants could exercise their right of purchase only
when they came to know about the death, i.e. in the year 2008. It is
submitted that for enabling the appellants, who were tenants, to exercise
the right of purchase, the notice by legal heirs was necessary.  When no
notice was issued by the respondent No.1., i.e., legal heir of the landlady
that he has succeeded
to tenancy, no cause of action arose for
appellants to exercise right of purchase, thus the right of purchase shall
not be defeated due to the above reason. It is submitted that right of
deemed purchase on the Tillers Day is only suspended in the case of
landlady, who was widow and after her death, the right of purchase shall
be revived in favour of the tenant and Courts below committed error in
rejecting the application filed by the
appellants for purchase. Learned
counsel for the appellants has further submitted that appellant being
permanent tenants, provisions of Section 31 were not attracted, hence,
there was no period of limitation for purchase by the tenants.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the submissions
of the appellants contends that the appellants having not exercised their
right of purchase within the time stipulated under Section 32F, the right
given under Section 32F, i.e., right of purchase of the tenant is lost and
no error has been committed by the Courts below in rejecting the
application filed by the appellants for purchase of the land. He submits
that death of the landlady having occurred on 07.05.1999, appellants
cannot be permitted to move an application for purchase in 2008 on the
ground that they were not aware of the death of the landlady. The period
for exercising the right of purchase is statutorily fixed, which cannot be
extended by anyone. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the issues raised by the appellant are fully covered by the judgment of
this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. Vs. Akubai
Ganapati Nimbalkar and Others, (1999) 4 SCC 443.
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1280                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
8. Learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective
submissions has relied on various judgments of this Court, which shall be
referred to while considering the submissions in detail.
9. Before we proceed to consider the respective submissions of
the parties, it is necessary to look into the Statutory Scheme of the 1948
Act. The 1948 Act was enacted to amend the law relating to tenancy
of agricultural lands and to make certain other provisions relating to
those lands. Chapter III of the Act deals with “Special Rights and
Privileges of Tenants and Provisions for Distribution of Land for Personal
Cultivation”. Section 31 of the  Act provides for Landlord’s right to
terminate tenancy for personal cultivation and non-agricultural purpose.
Section 31 of the Act is as follows:-
31. Landlord’s right to terminate tenancy for personal
cultivation and non- agricultural purpose.(1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in sections 14 and 30 but subject to sections
31A to 31D (both inclusive), a [landlord (not being a landlord within
the meaning of Chapter III- AA) may], after giving notice and
making an application for possession as provided in sub-section
(2), terminate the tenancy of any land (except a permanent tenancy),
if the landlord bona-fide requires the land for any of the following
purposes:––
(a) for cultivating personally, or
(b) for any non-agricultural purpose.
(2) The
notice required to be given under sub-section (1) shall be
in writing, shall state the purpose for which the landlord requires
the land and shall be served on the tenant on or before the 31st
day of December 1956. A copy of such notice shall, at the same
time, be sent to the Mamlatdar. An application for possession under
section 29 shall be made to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st
day of March 1957.
(3) Where a landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to
mental or physical disability then such notice may be given [and
an application for possession under section 29 may be made,]––
(i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he attains
majority;
(ii) by the successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1281
date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist;
(iii) within one year from the date on which mental or physical
disability ceases to exist; and
(iv) ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
[Provided that where a person of such category is a member of a
joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if at
least one member of the joint family is outside the categories
mentioned in the sub-section unless before the 31st  day of March
1958 the share of such person in the joint family has been separated
by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is satisfied
that the share of such person in the land is separated, having
regard to the area, assessment, classification and value of the
land, in the same proportion as the share of that person in the
entire joint family property, and not in a large proportion].
10. Section 31A enumerate the conditions of termination of
tenancy. Section 32 of the 1948 Act was comprehensively amended by
Act No. 15 of 1957. Various measures of agrarian reform under which
tillers of the soil were made the owners of the land, was introduced in
the Act by Act No. 15 of 1957.  This Court in Amrit Bhikaji Kale and
Others Vs. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Another (1983) 3
SCC 437 noticed the object of amendment Act No. 15 of 1957 in following
words:-
“6. The Tenancy Act was comprehensively amended by Amending
Act 15 of 1957. The amendment brought in a revolutionary
measure of agrarian reforms making tiller of the soil the owner of
the land. This was done to achieve the object of removing all
intermediaries between tillers of the soil and the State. Section 32
provides that by mere operation of law, every tenant of agricultural
land situated in the area to which the Act applies shall become by
the operation of law, the owner thereof. He is declared to be a
deemed purchaser without anything more on his part. A Constitution
Bench of this court in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of
Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459 held that:
“The title of the landlord to the land passes immediately to the
tenant on 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
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1282                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
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.”
Therefore, it is unquestionably established that on the tillers’
day, the landlord’s interest in the land gets extinguished and
simultaneously by a statutory sale without anything more by
the parties, the extinguished title of the landlord is kindled or
created in the tenant. That very moment landlord-tenant
relationship as understood in common law or Transfer of
Property Act comes to an end. The link and chain is broken.
The absent non-cultivating landlord ceases to have that
ownership element of the land and the cultivating tenant, the
tiller of the soil becomes the owner thereof. This is
unquestionable. The landlord from the date of statutory sale is
only entitled to receive the purchase price as determined by
the Tribunal under Section 32-G. In other words, the landlord
ceases to be landlord and the tenant becomes the owner of the
land and comes in direct contact with the State. Without any
act of transfer inter vivos the title of the landlord is extinguished
and is created simultaneously in the tenant making the tenant
the deemed purchaser. It is an admitted position that on April
1, 1957 Tarachand was the landlord and
Janardhan was the
tenant. Tarachand landlord was under no disability as envisged
by Section 32-F. Therefore on April 1, 1957 Janardhan became
deemed purchaser and Mr Lalit could not controvert this
position.”
11. Section 32 as amended by Act No. 15 of 1957 provided that
on the day of 1st April, 1957 (Tillers Day), tenants shall be deemed to
have purchased from their landlord, free of all encumbrances subsisting
thereon on the said day, the land held by them as tenant. Section 32(1),
which is relevant for the present case is as follows:-
“32. Tenants deemed to have purchased land on tillers’ day.-
[(1)] On the first day of April 1957 (hereinafter referred to as
“the tillers’ day”) every tenant shall, [subject to the other provisions
of this section and the provisions of] the next succeeding sections,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1283
be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free of all
encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day, the land held by
him as tenant, if––
(a) such tenant is a permanent tenant thereof and cultivates
land personally;
(b) such tenant is not a permanent tenant but cultivates the
land leased personally; and
(i) the landlord has not given notice of termination of his
tenancy under section 31; or
(ii) notice has been given under section 31, but the landlord
has not applied to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day
of March 1957 under section 29 for obtaining possession of
the land; [or]
[(iii) the landlord has not terminated his tenancy on any of
the grounds specified in section 14, or has so terminated
the tenancy but has not applied to the Mamlatdar on or
before the 31st day of March 1957 under section 29 for
obtaining possession of  the  lands] :
…  … …”
12. Section 32F, which is relevant in the present case is as follows:-
“32F. Right of tenant to purchase where landlord is minor,
etc.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding
sections,––
(a) where the landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject
to any mental or physical disability, the tenant shall have the right
to purchase such land under section 32 within one year from the
expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to
terminate the tenancy under section 31 [and for enabling the tenant
to exercise the right of purchase, the landlord shall send an
intimation to the tenant of the fact that he has attained majority,
before the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled
to terminate the tenancy under section 31] :
[Provided that where a person of such category is a member
of a joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if
at least one member of the joint family is outside the categories
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1284                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
mentioned in this sub-section unless before the 31st day of March
1958 the share of such person in the joint family has been separated
by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is satisfied
that the share of such person in the land is separated, having
regard to the area, assessment, classification and value of the
land, in the same proportion as the share of that person in the
entire joint family property and not in a larger proportion].
(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[(1A) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred
on him under sub- section (1) shall give an intimation in that behalf
to the landlord and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within
the period specified in that sub-section] :
[Provided that, if a tenant holding land from a landlord (who
was a minor and has attained majority before the commencement
of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act,
1969) has not given intimation as required by this sub-section but
being in possession of the land on such commencement is desirous
of exercising the right conferred upon him under sub-section (1),
he may give such intimation within a period of two years from the
commencement of that Act].
(2) The provisions of sections 32 to 32E (both inclusive) and
sections 32G to 32R (both inclusive) shall, so far as may be
applicable, apply to such purchase.
13. The facts of the present case as noticed above indicate
that
although predecessor-in-interest of the appellants were tenants of the
land in question since before 01.04.1957 but on the relevant day, i.e. the
Tillers Day, the land was held by Smt. Indirabai Balwant Sawant, who
was widow, hence the deemed purchase as contemplated by Section 32
stood suspended by virtue of Section 31(3). Section 31 enumerates
landlord’s right to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation and non-
agricultural purpose.  In case of a minor or a widow or a person subject
to mental or physical disability, by virtue of Section 31(3), an application
for termination of tenancy and application for possession can be made
by the minor on the date on which he attains majority and by the
successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date on which
her interest in the land ceases to exist.  Widow,    Smt. Indirabai Balwant
Sawant having died on 07.05.1999, her interest ceased on 07.05.1999,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1285
which by virtue of Will was successed by respondent No.1. Thus, by
virtue of Section 31(3) (ii), the respondent No.1 had a right to give notice
of termination of tenancy and application for possession within one year
from 07.05.1999. From the facts of the present case it is apparent from
the record that neither any notice was given by the widow in her lifetime
for termination of tenancy nor her successor-in-title, i.e. respondent No.1
gave any notice under Section 31 for termination of tenancy within one
year from 07.05.1999 and it was on 05.09.2008, the appellants made an
application under Section 32F for purchase of land. The Sub-  Divisional
Officer, Revenue Tribunal as well as the High Court rejected the claim
of the appellant only on the ground that appellants, i.e. tenants failed to
exercise their right of purchase within the period as prescribed under
Section 32F(1), they held that the appellant had a right of purchase under
Section 32 within one year from the expiry of the period during which
successor-in-interest of landlady was entitled to terminate the tenancy
under Section 31. The tenants having not exercised their right of purchase
within two years from 07.05.1999, the right of purchase of the appellants
has been lost.
14. This Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Sections
31, 32 and 32F of the 1948 Act in large number of cases. It is useful to
notice few of such cases, which are relevant for deciding the issues
raised in these
appeals. In Amrit Bhikaji  Kale (supra), this Court
held that Section 32F postponed the date of compulsory purchase by the
tenant where the landlord is a minor or a widow. In paragraph No.8,
following has been laid down:-
“8. It may be mentioned that Section 32-F has no application to
the facts of this case. Section 32-F postponed the date of
compulsory purchase by the tenant where the landlord is a minor
or a widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability on
the tillers’ day. Section 32-F has an overriding effect over Section
32 as it opens with a non-obstante clause. The combined effect
of Sections 32-F and 32 would show that where the landlord is
under no disability as envisaged by Section 32-F 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 Section 32-F such as 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
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1286                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
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, is unassailable.”
15. In Anna Bhau Magdum, since deceased by His Legal
Representatives Vs. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai, (1995) 5 SCC
243, this Court had occasion to consider Section 32F(1A) of 1948 Act.
In the above case, original owner by gift deed dated 04.09.1953 gifted
the land to respondent, who was a minor and who attained the majority
on 17.01.1965. The proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act were
started in respect of the said land in the year 1960, but in view of the fact
that the landlord was a minor, the said proceedings were dropped. Fresh
proceedings were initiated in the year 1975 under Section 32-G before
the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal. Additional
Tehsildar passed an order holding that the tenant has lost his right to
purchase the land and declared that the purchase of land by the tenant
has become ineffective.  On remand, the Tehsildar again held that tenant
could exercise his right of purchase by sending an intimation upto
17.01.1967 and since the tenant had failed to send such an intimation, his
right of purchase is forfeited. It was also held that by the amendment
incorporated in Section 32F(1A) by Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969, a further
opportunity was given to the tenant to
exercise his right of purchase by
sending the intimation upto 17.10.1971 and that even during this period
of extension the tenant did not avail of the opportunity. An appeal and
the revision filed by the tenant was dismissed. Writ petition filed by the
tenant was also dismissed against which the appeal was filed. In
Paragraph  Nos. 10, 12 and 13, following was held by this Court:-
“10. In the present case it is not disputed that the tenant did not
send any intimation as required by sub-section (1)(a) either up to
17-1-1967 or even up to 17-10-1971 as provided by the proviso
under sub-section (1-A) of Section 32-F. Moreover, the tenant in
his statement given on 25-8-1960 before the Agricultural Lands
Tribunal stated that he was aware that the respondent-landlord
would be attaining majority on 17-1-1965. Thus there was non-
compliance on the part of the tenant with the provisions of sub-
section (1-A) of Section 32-F of the Act and on that basis it has
been held that the tenant could not avail the right of purchase
conferred under Section 32 read with Section 32-F of the Act.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1287
12. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is an automatic purchase
of the land by the tenant in a case where the landlord happens to
be a minor or a widow or a person subject to any mental or physical
disability as mentioned in Section 32-F. In such a case the right of
purchase conferred on the tenant can be effective only if it is
exercised in accordance with the provisions of Section 32-F.
13. ………………We are, therefore, of the opinion that
requirement regarding intimation by the tenant to the landlord
prescribed under sub-section (1-A) of Section 32-F is mandatory
in nature and the failure on the part of the tenant in the present
case to give such an intimation to the landlord within the prescribed
period has resulted in the tenant having failed to avail the right to
purchase conferred on him and it has been rightly held that the
tenant having failed to exercise the right to purchase conferred
on him by the Act was liable to summary eviction under Section
32-P(1) of the Act.”
16. Again in Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. vs.
Akubai Ganpati Nimbalkar & others, (1994) 4 SCC 443, this Court
had occasion to examine Section 32F and Section 31 of the Act. The
facts of the case as noticed in paragraph No.2 are as follows:-
“2. As landlady Shevantibai was a widow, the deemed date of
statutory purchase by the appellant-tenant was postponed. It is
not in dispute that his right to purchase the land was for that reason
governed by the provisions of Section
32-F of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Shevantibai died on 8-12-1965.
The appellant thereafter on 15-6-1968 gave an intimation to the
heirs of Shevantibai that he was interested in purchasing the land
under Section 32-F of the Act. On 9-7-1968, the legal
representatives of Shevantibai applied under Section 32-P of the
Act for a declaration that as the tenant had not complied with the
requirements of Section 32-F the sale has become ineffective
and therefore the possession of land may be restored to them as
their holding was less than the ceiling area. The Tehsildar granted
that application. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed an
appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer who allowed it and remanded
the case for deciding it under Section 32-G of the Act. Therefore,
the heirs of Shevantibai filed a revision petition before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and contended that since the tenant
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1288                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
had failed to exercise his right under Section 32-F within the
stipulated period, the purchase had become ineffective and,
therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer was in error in allowing the
appeal and sending the matter back to the Tehsildar for deciding
the same under Section 32-G. The Tribunal accepted this contention
and allowed the revision application and restored the order passed
by the Tehsildar. The High Court in the writ petition filed by the
appellant confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal.”
17. The submission on behalf of the appellants that heirs of the
landlady had not given any intimation to the appellants about her death
and therefore they could not have known who are the heirs of the landlady
and give intimation to them was rejected. The submission that the period
of one year should be counted from the date of the knowledge of the
tenants was also not accepted. In Paragraph No. 4, following has been
laid down:-
“4. It was submitted by the learned counsel that this being a
welfare legislation enacted for the benefit of tenants should be
construed in a liberal manner. He also submitted that the heirs of
the landlady had not given any intimation to the appellant about
her death and therefore he could not have known who were the
heirs of the landlady and given intimation to them. He submitted
that the period of one year should be counted from the date of the
knowledge of
the tenant. We cannot accept this submission
because the language of Sections 32-F and 31 is quite clear and
the period of one year will have to be counted in accordance with
the said provisions and not from the date of the knowledge of the
tenant. The provision of law being clear, we cannot in such a case
grant relief on the basis of equity.”
18.Sudam Ganpat Kutwal, Power-of-Attorney-Holder of
Shankar Sitaram Bhosle Vs. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar
(Dead) by LR. Maruti Shankar Pachpute, (2006) 7 SCC 200 was
a case where provisions of 1948 Act especially Sections 31 and 32F
were elaborately considered. The appellant was inducted as tenant of
agricultural land in the year 1954 and was cultivating the land personally.
The landlord filed an application under Section 31 read with Section 29
in the year 1958. An order was made directing that possession of half of
the land should be delivered to the landlord for her bonafide personal
cultivation. Landlord filed another case in the year 1964 seeking
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1289
possession of the remaining half of the land on the ground that the
appellant had committed certain defaults. The petition was rejected. The
landlord died on 23.03.1975, and thereafter her successor-in- title’s name
was entered in the record-of-rights. Successor-in-title filed an application
under Section 32P read with Section 32F for a declaration that the deemed
statutory purchase by the tenant be declared as void and ineffective, as
the tenant had failed to fulfil the mandatory requirement of giving a
notice of intimation of purchase within the time stipulated under Section
32F(1A). Agricultural Land Tribunal accepted the contention of
successor-in-title holding that tenant had failed to issue a notice of
purchase. The appellant had filed a writ petition aggrieved with the order
of Agricultural Land Tribunal, which writ petition was dismissed. The
issue, which was considered by this Court has been noticed in Paragraph
No. 14 to the following effect:-
“14. The dispute in this appeal relates to the question as to whether
it was necessary for the tenant to issue a notice of intimation of
purchase under Section 32-F (1-A) of the Act to the successor-
in-title of Anusuyabai in regard to the half portion retained by him
under Section 31-B(1) read with Section 31(1) of the Act and
whether the failure to do so resulted in forfeiture of the tenant’s
right to the said land or right to purchase the said land under the
Act.”
19. After noticing various provisions
of the Act, this Court in
Paragraph No. 23 of the judgment recorded its conclusions, which is to
the following effect:-
“23. The position as disclosed by a combined and harmonious
reading of Sections 31, 32, 32-F and 32-G may be stated thus:
(a) Where the landlord has not served on the tenant, a notice of
termination [as stated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
32], the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the tillers’
day (1- 4-1957);
(b) Where the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the
tillers’ day (1- 4-1957), the Lands Tribunal is required to issue
notice and determine the price of land to be paid by the tenant.
Where there is a deemed purchase, but the right to purchase is
postponed, the Land Tribunal shall determine the price of land, as
soon as may be after the postponed date.
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1290                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
(c) A landlord had a right to give notice and make an application
for possession after terminating the tenancy, if he wanted the
land bona fide for personal cultivation, provided the notice was
served on the tenant on or before 31-12-1956 (with copy to the
Mamlatdar) and application for possession under Section 29 was
filed on or before 31-3-1957.
(d) A landlord widow is also entitled to make an application for
possession under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act. Sub-
section (3) of Section 31 which is an enabling provision, extends
the time within which the widow can seek possession under Section
31(1) of the Act, beyond 31-12- 1956. As a result, where the
landlord is a widow, then the notice required under sub- section
(1) of Section 31 may be given and the application for possession
under Section 29 may be made by her so long as her interest in
the land exists. Such notice can also be given by the successor-
in-title of the widow within one year from the date on which the
interest of the widow in the land ceases to exist.
(e) Where the landlord is a widow [and she does not exercise her
right under Section 31(1) of the Act], the right to purchase under
the deemed purchase is postponed till the expiry of the period
during which such (disabled) landlord is entitled to terminate the
tenancy under Section 31(3). The tenant desirous of exercising
such right shall, however, give an
intimation in that behalf to the
landlord and the Tribunal within one year thereafter, as required
under Section 32-F(1-A).
Consequently, where the landlord, being a widow as on 1-4-1957,
does not choose to terminate the tenancy for personal cultivation,
the tenancy continues during her lifetime and on the death of the
widow, her successor-in-title will have the right to terminate the
tenancy within one year from the date of death of the widow. The
tenant shall have the right to purchase such land, under Section
32, within one year from the expiry of the period during which
such successor-in-title of the widow is given the right to terminate
the tenancy under Section 31(3) by giving an intimation as required
under Section 32-F(1-A).
(f) Where a landlord, who is a widow, exercises her right of
termination and secures possession of part of the tenanted land
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1291
for personal cultivation under Section 31(1) of the Act, then there
is no question of her successor-in-title giving a notice of termination
within one year from the date on which the widow’s interest ceases
to exist. When Section 31(3) ceases to apply, Section 32-F also
will not apply and there is no need for the tenant to give any
intimation under Section 32-F(1-A).
(g) On an order for possession being made in favour of a widow
landlord in regard to land up to 50% of the tenanted land under
Section 31(1) read with Section 31-B(1), the widow will get
possession of such land and the tenant continues in possession in
regard to the remaining land. In regard to the land remaining with
the tenant, rent has to be fixed under Section 31-D, until the
purchase price is determined under Section 32-G(5) and is paid
by the tenant purchaser.”
20. In the above case, this Court held that there was no need at all
for the tenant to issue any notice of intimation to the landlord as successor-
in-tile as the landlord has lost right to terminate the tenancy regarding
remaining half land. The contention that tenant in facts of that case has
to issue notice under Section 32F within the period prescribed was rejected
while observing following in paragraph No. 27:-
“27. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions
of this Court in Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan
Trade (1983) 3 SCC 437, Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb
Anandrao Desai (1995) 5 SCC 243, Appa
Narsappa Magdum
v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar (1999) 4 SCC 443 and
Balchandra Anantrao Rakvi v. Ramchandra Tukaram (2001)
8 SCC 616 to contend that the tenant has to issue a notice under
Section 32-F within the period prescribed and if he fails to do so,
he loses the right to purchase the land and the landlord will become
entitled to the same absolutely. These were all cases where the
landlord under disability had not sought possession for personal
cultivation under Section 31(1) and where admittedly, Sections
31(3) and 32-F applied and consequently, there was an obligation
on the part of the tenant to send an intimation under Section 32-
F(1-A). None of the cases related to a widow landlord who had
terminated the tenancy during her lifetime and taken possession
of a portion of the tenanted land. Therefore, the said decisions
will not apply.”
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1292                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
21. The next judgment to be noticed is Tukaram Maruti Chavan
Vs. Maruti Narayan Chavan (Dead) by LRS. And Others (2008) 9
SCC 358, which judgment has been relied by Revenue Tribunal also in
the present case. The facts of the case have been noticed in the
Paragraph Nos. 2 to 5, which are to the following effect:-
“2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as emerging
from the case made out by the appellant, may be summarised as
follows:
The dispute arose out of the provision of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Act”) relating to the land being Gat No. 44, measuring 5
hectares and 24 ares in Village Malangaon, Kavathe, Mahankal
Tehsil of Sangli District in the State of Maharashtra (in short
“the disputed land”). Late Smt Narmadabai who was a widow,
was the original landowner of the disputed land. She died in
1964 leaving behind her two sons, Ramchandra and Laxman
Bhau Sutar.
3. On 1-4-1957 i.e. on the Tiller’s Day, the appellant was in
cultivation of the disputed land. The original tenant named Maruti
died subsequently in 1994 during the pendency of the writ petition
in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The original tenant
had initiated proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act before
the Additional Tahsildar, Kavathe Makhanlal, and the case was
decided in his favour with the purchase price of the disputed land
being fixed. Thereafter, one of the heirs of the deceased landowner
Narmadabai, named Laxman, preferred an appeal to the appellate
authority against the said order. After the matter was remanded
back to the Additional Tahsildar, again an order affirming the
previous position was passed in favour of the tenant under Section
32-G. This time, the other heir of late Smt Narmadabai, namely,
Ramchandra, challenged the said order before the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Miraj, and he again by his order dated 31-3-1978, remanded
the matter to the Tahsildar for a detailed enquiry and decision on
the following points:
“(1) The clear title of the disputed land of the applicant
Ramchandra should be enquired.
(2) The point of giving notice under Section 32-F of the Act to
the landlord and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal should be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1293
enquired as per the provisions under Section 32-F of the Act.”
4. When the matter came up before the Tahsildar, he passed an
order holding the second respondent as the sole owner of the
disputed land. The purchase of the disputed land by the appellant
was therefore declared to be ineffective for want of notice under
Section 32-F and the disputed land was ordered to be disposed of
under Section 32-P of the Act. Thereafter, the appellant preferred
a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but the same
was dismissed.
5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant
filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court on 28-12-
1983. The Bombay High Court by its impugned judgment and
order dated 16-4- 1999, dismissed the said writ petition on the
ground that the respondent (Ramchandra) was the sole owner of
the disputed land in pursuance of the letters of administration
obtained by him from the civil court. It is this decision of the High
Court, which is impugned in this appeal in respect of which the
writ petition was filed.”
22. The contention of the appellant has been noticed in Paragraph
No.10 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:-
“10. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant contended
that if Sections 31 and 32-F are read together, then the tenant is not
required to give any notice to the landlord because neither Narmadabai
nor her successor-in-interest ever gave any notice to the tenant under
Section 31 of
the Act. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand
contended that Section 32-F is a complete section in itself and the
provision of the earlier sections cannot influence or have overriding effect.
He therefore contended that whatever be the right of the landlord under
Section 31, the same gets separated by virtue of the provisions of Section
32-F. This contention was negated by the counsel for the appellant arguing
that Section 32-F cannot be said to have overriding effect on all the
earlier sections.”
23. This Court held that tenant was under legal obligation or
statutory duty to give notice of his intention to purchase the land as
required under Section 32F. In Paragraph No. 13, following has been
stated:-
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1294                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
“13. In our view, the High Court correctly pointed out that the
provisions of Section 32-F are independent in nature and are
separate from the provisions under Section 31 of the Act. The
exception mentioned under Section 32-F(1) to sub-section (2) is
limited to the sections referred to in it i.e. from Sections 32 to 32-
E (both inclusive) and Sections 32-G to 32-R (both inclusive).
Further the expression “Notwithstanding anything contained in
the preceding sections” under sub-section (1) of Section 32-F is
of paramount importance. Considering the fact that Section 31 is
not included in the sections mentioned under sub-section (2) of
Section 32-F, and the expression “Notwithstanding anything
contained in the preceding sections” under sub-section (1) of
Section 32-F, we are of the view that the right given to the landlord
under Section 31 has nothing to do with the right given to the
tenant under Section 32-F for purchasing the land and consequently
it has to be held that the appellant in this case was under a legal
obligation or statutory duty to give notice of his intention to purchase
the land as required under Section 32-F.”
24. The submission of the appellant that she could not serve a
notice since she was not sure of the title of the disputed land was also
not accepted by this Court. Following was observed by this Court in
Paragraph No.18:-
“18. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant
has argued before us that the appellant could not serve a notice to
the landowner since he was not sure about the title of the disputed
land owing to a dispute between the two sons of late Smt
Narmadabai who were claiming the title of the disputed land. We
cannot accept this contention of the appellant. The order passed
by the Tahsildar, Kavathe Mahankal, lays down the fact that Shri
Ramchandra, Respondent 2 in this case, had produced a certified
copy of the judgment and order dated 28-4-1966, passed by the
Senior Joint Civil Judge in Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of
1965 in which it has been declared that Shri Ramchandra is the
owner of the disputed land on the basis of the will executed by his
mother late Smt Narmadabai. The appellant also in his deposition
admitted that:
“The owner of the said land was Smt Narmadabai Bhau Sutar.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1295
Narmadabai died before 10/12 years. Ramchandra Bhau Sutar
filed suit on the basis of the will, and got transferred the land of
Narmadabai in his name.”
25. The ratio of the above noted judgments can be restated in
following words:-
(i)
For a landlord suffering from a disability on the Tillers Day
i.e. 01.04.1957, the deemed purchase shall be suspended.
(ii)
Landlord suffering from a disability has a right under Section
31(3) of the Act to give notice of termination of tenancy
and file an application for possession.
(iii)
Under Section 31(3), a minor, within one year from date on
which he attains majoriy; a successor-in-title of a widow
within one year from the date on which her interest in the
land ceases to exist; and landlord within one year from the
date on which his/her mental or physical disability ceases
to exist can also give an application for termination of
tenancy and possession.
(iv)
Under Section 32F tenant has right to purchase where
landlord was minor or a widow or a person subject to mental
or physical disability within one year from the expiry of the
period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate
the tenancy under Section 31.
(v)
The tenant, in event, does not exercise his right of purchase
within the period as prescribed under Section 32F(1)(a),
his/her right to purchase shall be lost.
26. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that landlady died on
07.05.1999 and within one year thereafter her successor-in-title did not
exercise his right under Section 31(3) and thereafter within one year
tenant has not given any intimation for purchase as contemplated by
Section 32(F). The question to be answered is as to whether in the
above facts, Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Tribunal as well as the
High Court were right in their conclusion that right of the tenant, i.e. the
appellant has lost, he having not issued any intimation for purchase of
the land within one year from expiry of the period as contemplated under
Section 31(3).
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1296                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
27. The ratio of this Court as noticed above especially in judgments
of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum (supra), Sudam Ganpat
Kutwal(supra) and Tukaram Maruti Chavan (supra) clearly support
the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants
having not exercised their right to purchase under Section 32F(1) read
with (1A) within the time prescribed the right of purchase of the tenant
is lost. But there is one aspect of the matter which needs to be noted and
has not been considered in the above judgments rendered by two- Judge
Benches of this Court which we shall notice hereinafter.
28. The 1948 Act was amended by Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969. Section 32F was also amended by the
above Amendment Act, 1969. It is useful to refer to the Statement of
Objects and Reasons which led to amendment in Section
32 of the Act. L.A. Bill No. LXII of 1969 was introduced in the
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 18th August, 1969. The Statement
of Objects and Reasons of the Bill are relevant for the present case
which are to the following effect:
“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS.
It has come to the notice of Government that a number of tenants
in the Bombay area and the Vidarbha region of the State, failed to
acquire ownership right in the lands held by them on account of
their being dispossessed from the land otherwise than in the
manner laid down
in the relevant tenancy law. It is, therefore,
expedient to amend the tenancy laws in force in these regions for
safe-guarding the interest of these dispossessed tenants.
It is also noticed that a large number of tenants in the
Bombay area of the State holding land from landlords who were
minors have lost right to purchase land for their failure to give
intimation within the period laid down in sub-section (IA) of section
32, It is, therefore, necessary to give these tenants a fresh
opportunity to purchase land. Section 32F is, therefore, being
suitably amended for that purpose.
As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of India,
in Civil appeals Nos. 312(N) and 313(N) of 1966 from the
judgement of the High Court of Gujarat regarding jurisdiction of
Civil Court in certain matters, it has also become necessary to
suitably amend certain sections of the tenancy laws in force in
the three regions of the State.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1297
The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.”
29. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons it is noticed that a
large number of tenants in the Bombay area of the State holding lands
from landlords who were minors have lost right to purchase land for
their failure to give intimation within the period laid down in sub-section
(1A) of Section 32. The above reason lead to the amendment. By
Amendment Act, 1969 in Section 32F sub-section (1) in clause (a)
following words were added:
“and for enabling the tenant to exercise the right of purchase, the
landlord shall send an intimation to the tenant of the fact that he
has attained majority, before the expiry of the period during which
such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under section
31”
30. The above amendment caste a statutory obligation on a landlord
who has attained the majority to send intimation to the tenant. The above
amendment was made to enable the tenant to exercise the right of
purchase which was the object and purpose of the amendment.
31. Section 31(3) enumerates three categories of landlord who
suffers from one or other disabilities due to which the right of purchase
of tenant has been suspended on Tillers Day. The three categories of
landlord have been empowered to give notice of termination of tenancy.
Section 31(3) for ready reference is reproduced again:
“Section 31(3) Where a landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a
person subject to mental or physical disability then such notice
may be given [and an application for possession under section
29 may be made,]––
(i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he
attains majority;
(ii) by the successor-in-title of a widow within one year
from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist;
(iii) within one year from the date on which mental or physical
disability ceases to exist; and
(iv) * * * * * * * *
32. Amendment in Section 32(1)F(a) added by Act No.49 of 1969
expressly covered a case of landlord who was minor and has attained
majority. Intimation by a minor landlord who has attained majority has
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1298                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
been made a statutory obligation of the landlord so that tenant may
exercise his right of purchase. The other two categories which are a
widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability have not been
expressly included in the amendment incorporated in Act 49 of 1969.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendment given in 1969
as well as the express provisions of such amendment are for the purposes
and object to enable the tenant to exercise right of purchase. When for
one category of landlord i.e. minor it is mandated that he will intimate
the tenant after he attained the majority so that tenant may be enabled to
exercise the right of purchase, we are of the view that the same object
has to be read in two other categories of landlord that is the successor-
in-title of a widow and a landlord whose mental or physical disability has
been ceased. When the legislative object is to facilitate a tenant of a
disabled landlord after cessation of disability to exercise right of purchase,
the same benefit needs to be extended to other two categories of disabled
landlord. We do not find any distinction in three categories of disabled
landlord nor tenant of a landlord who was a minor can be put on any
higher footing as compared to other landlords suffering from the above
two disabilities. The question may be asked that amendment only expressly
included the landlord who has attained
majority to send intimation and
the legislature consciously did not include the other two categories of
landlord i.e. successor-in-interest of a widow and landlord of a mental
and physical disability ceases to exist. The Objects and Reasons and
express amendment made by Act 49 of 1969 were with a view to enable
the tenant to exercise his right of purchase. The said legislative intendment
is to be extended to all tenants of landlords who were suffering from
disability on the Tillers Day, whether successor-in-title of a widow or a
landlord whose mental or physical disability ceases. All the three
categories of tenants should be extended the same benefit and provision
should be interpreted so that all tenants may be enabled to exercise their
right of purchase effectively and in real sense.
33. As in the present case tenant’s case is that he was unaware
of the death of the landlady since for the last several years she was
living in Bombay, the date of knowledge of death of the landlady cannot
be said to be a irrelevant factor and unless the tenant is aware of the
death of landlady or in case of landlord suffering from physical or mental
disability, how he will exercise his right of purchase is an important
question. The 1948 Act and the Amendments made by 1969 Act were
with intent to facilitate tenants to exercise their right. The Amendments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1299
by Act 15 of 1957 was agrarian reform making tillers of the soil the
owners of the land which was done to achieve the object of making all
tillers of the soil as owners of the land. While interpreting the provisions
of Section 32F, 1A as well as Section 31(3) the purpose and object of the
1948 Act, amendments made therein from time to time cannot be lost
sight.
34. When Section 32F of Act 1948 gives right to purchase to a
tenant whose landlord was suffering from a disability on Tillers Day, the
exercise of right to purchase by such tenant has to be interpreted in a
manner so as to make the exercise of right meaningful and effective.
The above said right cannot be defeated on the ground that it was not
exercised within period prescribed when the tenant is unaware as to
when the period has begun.
35. The period prescribed for exercising the right to purchase is
not a period of limitation but a reasonable period prescribed for the
exercise of a right. The knowledge of cessation of disability of landlord
by the tenant can only be commencement of period prescribed.
36. When a statute gives a right to a tenant, statute needs to be
interpreted in a manner so as to make the right workable, effective and
meaningful. Such right cannot be defeated unless it is proved that tenant
even after knowing that disability has ceased does not exercise his right
within the period prescribed.
37. A two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Appa Narsappa
Magdum (supra) has
expressly rejected the submission that tenant
had no intimation of the death of landlady. Further judgments of this
Court in Sudam Ganpat Kutwal (supra) and Tukaram Maruti
Chavan(supra) also laid down the same ratio. The judgments in the
above three cases were rendered by the two-Judge Benches in which
cases the amendments made by Act 49 of 1969 were neither raised or
considered. We, thus, are of the view that the ratio laid down in the
above cases needs to be reconsidered and explained in view of the
object and purpose for which amendments were made in Section
32F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969 as noticed above. We, thus, refer following
questions for consideration of a larger Bench:
(1)
Whether the object and purpose of amendment made in
Section 32F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969 is also relevant and
applicable for exercise of right to purchase by a tenant of
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1300                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
landlord who was widow or suffering from mental and
physical disability on Tillers Day ?
(2)
Whether the successor-in-interest of a widow is also obliged
to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation of interest of
the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right of
purchase.
(3)
In the event the answer to above question (1) or (2) is in
affirmative, whether decision of this Court in Appa
Narsappa Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and
Tukaram Maruti Chavan (supra) needs reconsideration
and explanation.
38. Let the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice
for constituting a larger Bench. In the meantime, we direct that the
parties shall maintain the status quo.
Ankit Gyan
Matters referred to larger Bench.
END OF 2018
*******