bt and al act

BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL ACT, 1948

2013

SEC- 32(1)

WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2001

Jijabai Dinkar Jadhav

V/s.

Shri Haribhau Rangnath Kulkarni,

CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J.

DATED : 11th January 2013.

The respondent - permanent tenant on tillers day- sublet the land held

by him to the predecessor in title of the petitioner - as per

the provisions of section 32(1) the petitioner would be a subtenant

who is deemed to be a tenant of the land held by him on the tillers' day.

In so far as contention of respondent regarding Rit4-

even according to Rit4, the possession would be of the petitioner as sub-

tenant who had agreed for cultivating the land on

the condition of giving half share of the crop to the tenant.

Undisputedly, it is the petitioner’s predecessors in title who were in

possession of the suit land on the tillers day. In that view of the matter

and in view of provisions of sections 32(1) and 32G of the said Act, the

orders passed by learned ALT and learned SDO affirmed by leaned

Tribunal in revision application cannot be faulted with.

Review jurisdiction - the scope of review jurisdiction is very limited.

The Tribunal can xercise review jurisdiction only for correcting an error apparent

on the face of record. Tribunal while exercising review jurisdiction has crossed

the limits of the review jurisdiction.

SEC- 2(18), 32(O)


1. Shri Jagannath Vithu Jadhav

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra.

CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J.

DATED : 11th January 2013.

JUDGMENTS RELIED IN THE CASE-

Bhila KeshavPatil v. Ganpati Chunilal Kabre, 1972 (vol.LXXV) BLR 98; Dhond

u Bapu Survey v. Aniruddh Yeshwant Vaidya (Spl.C.A.No.479/1972

dated 20th November 1975);

Laxman Dhondi v. Yashodabai, 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 506; and Gulabrao Sahebrao v.

Sayaji Shankar, 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 873.

Dahya Lal v.Rasul Mahomed Abdul Rahim (supra). The Constitution Bench of the

Apex Court,

s.2 (18) condition imposed by the statute is only - deemed tenant must be

cultivating land "lawfully" : - not the condition that he must cultivate land with

the consent of or under authority derived directly from the owner - To import

such a condition it is to rewrite the section, and destroy its practical utility-

contractual tenant not a"deemed tenant".

In our view, all persons other than

those mentioned in cls. (a), (b) and (c) of s. 4 who lawfully cultivate land

belonging to other persons

Whether or not their authority is derived directly from

the owner of the land must be deemed tenants of the lands.

Merely because the petitioner failed to establish that he was

not tenant on the tillers' day, he cannot be denied the benefit of section

32O of the said Act, if it is found that the tenancy has been created

after the tillers' day. Section 32O of the said Act specifically creates

right in favour of the tenant after the tillers' day to purchase the land

held by him from the landlord. However, this is subject to limitation

of one year- the period of one year provided for sending intimation under

section 32O will not commence until the landlord accepts the statutory tenancy or

until his contention denying the tenancy is finally and conclusively

overruled.

2012

SEC -74

WRIT PETITION NO.987 OF 1995

Jamatul Muslimin Jama Mashid

Mandiwali

vs.

1. Shri Allimiya Shaikh Ahmed Bangi

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J

DATED : 5.12.2012

JUDGMENTS RELIED IN THE CASE - 1975 Mh.L.J. (Janha Barke vs Rajesh)

2001 (3) S.C.C. 179 (Santosh Hazari vs Purshottam Tiwari)

the S.D.O-. statutory authority expected to decide the Appeal as per provisions of

section 74 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 has failed to appreciate

the rival contentions and consideration therein is cryptic.

SEC -32, 32(F)


Hinurao Ganpati Mandhare

vs.

Mahadeo Vittal Mandhare


DATED : 30.11.2012

JUDGMENTS RELIED IN THE CASE – Vishnu Shantaram Desai vs Smt Indira

Anant Patkar 1971 (Vol 63) The Bombay Law Reporter 792.

1998 (1) Mh. L. J 562 Gajrabai Narayan Chauvan vs Ratnabai Vishnu Gaikwad

Sec 32- widow is deemed to have purchased the land on tillor’s day- Sec 32 (F)-

only a further protection if widow does not exercise her right and successor gets

two years from the date on which her interest in the land ceases. Thus it is apparent

that the right is to be exercised only once.

SEC -76 (Revision) (delay in filing Revision)

WRIT PETITION NO.373 OF 1997 and 374 of 1997

Shankar Ramrao Ragnekar

vs.

Narayan Sakharam Sawant


DATED : 30.11.2012

JUDGMENTS RELIED IN THE CASE – M.M. College of Science Vs. R.T.

Borkar 1997 (2) Mh. L. J. 168

National Building Construction vs Reginal Labour Commissioner 2006 (1) Mh. L.

J. 669

The provisions of 1979 act – limitation of 60 days for filing revision- the revisions

filed after almost 4 years without any application for condonation of delay- only an

affidavit explaining the delay filed- however the facts in affidavit are not disclosed

in judgment- judgment does not show the application of mind by MRT and the

thought process to condone the delay- the matter remanded with direction to

decide the issue of delay first and then to look into the controversy in revision on

merits.

SEC -76


Jayraj Kantilal Sonawala

vs.

MRT

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J

DATED : 31.10.2012 and 1.11.2012

Application by tenants u S 70 (b) – allowed by tahsildar- appeal to collector-

Matter remanded to Nayab Tahsildar- allowed- appeal to SDO- allowed holding

no evidence to show that the applicants are tenants- revision to MRT- matter

remanded- therefore the writ petition- held- the court should not show sympathy to

accommodate parties repeatedly- one does not remand if he is unsure of his

decision- if parties are not diligent to produce evidence then dismissal of their

claims by SDO is justified- the order of remand does not fit in the O XLI R 23,

23A, 25.


Jayraj Devidas

vs.

State of Maharashtra

CORAM :G. S. Godbole, J

DATED : 21.12.2012

S. 76, 76 (A)- There is nothing in the S. 76 or S. 76 (A) which takes away the jurisdiction of MRT to entertain the revision under S. 76 for challenging the order passed by the collector U/s 76- A


Jagannath Tukaram Jadhav

vs.

Anand Krishna Nalawade


DATED : 24.1.2012

Tahasildar and SDO are fact finding authoritites- MRT is normally bound by fact finding by thr Tahasildar and SDO unless shown perverse – S 33 merely creates rights and does not provide for a remedy- the application contemplated U/s 33 (B) is essentially application U/s 29- The application U/s 88- C by the heir of the widow for certificate – then this heir files for possession u/s 29- then the application is governed by provisions of 33B and 29 and not by provisions of s. 31- thus only bonafide requirement and condition is S. 33 B (5) needs to be fulfilled- thus in this case after receipt of certificate U/s 88 C the notice of termination given within one month is good- right created by sections 88- C and 33 B is peculiar right given to owner of very small pieces of lands and with limited income and was a conscious in-road in the rights of tenants to become a deemed purchaser.


Tukaram Dhondiba Chopade

vs.

Andappa Gena Walekar


DATED : 10.1.2012

Application U/s 32 (O)- order of statutory purchase passed- challenged by landlord u/s 31, 32R and 33 B- dismissed by tahsildar- appeal to SDO- remanded- Tahsildar held 32 (O) proceedings vitiated and certificate u/s 32 (M) not correct- appeal to SDO- held order of tahsildar without jurisdiction- revision to MRT- remanded back for fresh inquiry u/s 32(O)- therefore this WP- held- that thecontroversy involved in an application u/s 32 (O) was clearly a controversy which fell within the scope of sub clause (b) of S. 70 and the Mamalatdar and ALT, was the stutory authorirty who was conferred with the jurisdiction to decide the questionas to

whether the petitioner was tenent- thereforeit cannot be held to passed by an authority suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction- petition allowed.


Nivrutti Gngaram Pawar

vs.

Dinkar Maruti Jadhav


DATED : 13.12.2012

S. 6 and 6(A)- economic holding- the words “economic holding and income of the landlord- will have to be construed in the context of only the bonafide requirement of the landlord- the bonafide requirement is established in present case- it is not necessary for heir of certificate landlord must establish the strict requirement of S. 88 C and must also have income less than Rs. 1500/- in the application u/s 33 B.


Shankar Keshav Chopde

vs.

Dnyanu Babu Shinde


DATED : 25.11.2012

Civil suit- issue what is reasonable rent of suit land- referred to Mamalatdar U/s 43 (B) who has exclusive jurisdiction U/s 70 (ma) – rent determined- Appeal to SDO- dismissed- Revision to MRT- matter remanded- therefore this WP- held- the remand was unnecessary in the absence of any reasoning and also in the absence reasoning to the perversity of finding by SDO- MRT can decide the matter on the basis of material available on record.

2011WRIT PETITION NO. 5236 OF 1989

Laxman Maruti Kolathe

vs.

Baburao Mhasku Shendkar

CORAM : Ranjit More, J

DATED : 28.9.2011

Suit proparty allotted to Gajarabai in lieu of her maintenance- she inducted petitioner as tenant in 1956- held Gajarabai became an absolute owner of suit land by virtue of S. 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act therefore petitioner’s induction can not be questioned- evidence shows petitioner was cultivating on tiller’s day therefore has become owner u/s 32 of the act- the subsequent mortgage deed for the suit land executed by Gajarabai in favour of petitioner does not affect petitioenr’s right of tenancy as they are protected U/s 25 (A)


Anant Chintaman Oze

vs.

Laxman Mahadu Nigrose

CORAM :V. M. Kanade, J

DATED : 21.2.2011

Application U/s 70 (b) before Tahsildar- rejected- appeal to SDO- remanded- dismiss for default before Tahsildar- appeal to SDO- remanded- allowed by Tahsildar- appeal to SDO- dismissed- Revision to MRT- dismissed- therefore WP- high court in writ jurisdiction can not act as appellate authority- scope in writ limited- writ dismissed


Dhanappa Balappa Sawale

vs.

Gurulingeshwar Devasthan


DATED : 17.1.2011

Petitioner initiated proceedings U/s 32 G- dropped by ALT as lands were deoshtan land- lands re-granted to respondent- again 32 G- allowed- appeal by Respondnet- allowed- appeal to MRT- dismissed- holding subsequent proceedings barred (res- judicata) therefore WP- held- the property is trust property hence S.32 to R not applicable – admittedly Respondent in possession – no perversity in lower court order therefore no need to interfere under writ jurisdiction.

WRIT PETITION NO.4107 OF1993

Appa Dadu Patil

vs.

The State of Maharashtra


DATED : 13.01.2011

Respondent No.2 has purchased suit property under S.32 G and has obtained certificate under S.32 N – entered into agreement with petitioner – petitioner and Respondent submit that the agreement of 1985 is actually of mortgage and not of sale – so no contravention of S.84 C – suo moto inquiry in 1988 – held – though no limitation prescribed under the act for inquiry there was delay and it was not initiated within reasonable time – relied on Mohmad Kavi Mohmad Amin Vs.Fatimabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71.


Nanasaheb @ Shankarao Balasaheb Bhosale

vs.

Vinayak Aba Jagtap


DATED :13.01.2011

S.43 1B and 43 1C clearly envisages that so long as a separate share of the landlord is not earmarked he is not entitled to seek possession – the proceeding where pending at the time of 1964 amendment so the amended provisions under S.43 about transfer of matter to Collector is applicable.

WRIT PETITION NO.2704 OF 1992 and 2707 of 1997

Alladdin Bapubhai Mulla

vs.

Khanderao Ramrao Gaikwad


DATED :11.01.2011

Agreement between petitioner and respondent is not of mortgage and is of tenanacy- the inquiry pursuant to agreement declares respondent as tenent and given 32 (M0 certificate- revision to SDO- remanded- decided in favor of respondent- appeal to SDO- dismissed – revision to MRT- dismissed – held the name of the respondent entered into as tenant- no challenge by petitioner- petitioner remained absent in inquiry before tahasildar- no need to interefere in writ jurisdiction

2009WRIT PETITION NO.5065 OF 1991

1. Laxman Bhanu Gavane,

Versus

1. Shashikala Namdeo Kalane,

CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.

DATED: 3rd AUGUST, 2009.

Application by certificate landlady U/s 33 B for possession- subsequently 32 M

certificate issued in favour of the tenant – held- All the submissions about

comparative holding are now become academic in view of the fact that a certificate

under Section 32M of the said Act had already been issued before the Petition was

filed. The respondents have paid the purchase price as required under Section 32G

of the said Act and they are now recognized as owners of the lands.


Subhadra Nivrutti Dhere

Versus

Shankar Digambar Dixit


DATED: 3rd AUGUST, 2009.

Respondents are heirs of certificate landlord- original landlord filed application u/s

33 B for possession- However subsequently sold the land- petitioners’ contention

that the requirement for self cultivation by the landlord is not bonafide as the land

is sold by landlord- held- since the original landlord is expired it is necessary to

ascertain the bonafide requirements of his heirs.


Waman Atmaram Lavand

Versus

Dattatraya @ Dattu Baba Lavand

CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.

DATED : 7TH JULY, 2009.

The initiation of proceedings under Section 84C of the said Act after six years is

unacceptable. It is true that there is no limitation prescribed under Section 84C of

the said Act for commencing an enquiry. However, it is well settled that when the

period of limitation is not prescribed under the provisions of law, action must be

initiated within a reasonable time. The orders passed by all the Authorities below

must be set aside as the petitioners have improved the land at their costs and have

spent huge amounts for these improvements to the lands.


Shri Murgappa Shivarudrappa ... Petitioners

v/s.

Shri Amarsihna Babasaheb Dafale ... Respondent

Mr.R.P. Walvekar i/b R.R. Salvi for Petitioner

Mr.S.V. Sadavarte for Respondent


DATED: JULY 7, 2009

ORAL JUDGEMENT:

Exemption sought by the respondents u/S 88B- granted- not challenged by the

petitioner- The respondent filed an application under section 32 P for restoration of

the possession of the land of the Devasthan which was occupied by the petitioner.

held even though before an order is passed under section 88 B of the act atenant

occupying the land's of the charitable trust must be given notice as his valuable

right or purchase the lands occupied by him under section 32 of the act would be

seriously affected in the present case the petitioner has not challenged the order

passed under section 88 B of the act. What is challenged are the orders passed by

the tenancy court and by the appellate authority and the revenue tribunal for

restoration of possession- all the authorities below have rightly held that the

petitioner had no right to continue in possession of the devasthan lands as there

was no material before the authorities to establish that the petitioner was

inpossession of the land on the tillers day. Had the petitioner in fact been in

possession of the lands on the tillers day he would have exercised his option

immediately for purchasing the land occupied by him. The petitioner in my opinion

has rightly been evicted from the devasthan lands as he was unable to establish any

right to occupy those lands.


Dhanwant Parashram Kadam ... Petitioner

V/s.

Smt.Putlabai Gulab Kadam & Ors. ... Respondents

Mr.L.S. Gaikwad for Petitioner

Mr.A.J. Joshi for Respondent No.2


DATED: 2nd JULY, 2009

Predecessor of the petitioner was declared as tenant on 11.1.1965 as he was in

possession on tillers day however the inquiry u/S 32 G was postponed as the

landlord was minor. Inquiry held subsequently in respect of the half portion of the

land to the question of accepting another person than the petitioner as the tenant.-

held- It is now well settled that before the enquiry u/s 32G can be conducted and

the price of the land is determined, notice must be issued to all persons interested

therein. In this case admittedly, Hari Narayan who was declared the tenant of the

entire land had four sons and therefore when the enquiry u/s 32G was held in

respect of half the land in 1987 it was incumbent on the authorities to issue notice

to all his heirs. The order of the ALT and the Tribunal thus cannot be sustained.


Govind Babu Khot since deceased by

Heirs and LRs ... Petitioners

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent


DATED: 25th JUNE, 2009

The initiation of proceedings under Section 84C of the said Act after 3 years is

unacceptable.


Dnyaneshwar bhalchandra Jamdade ... Petitioner

V/s.

Kumar Babu Sonawane & Ors. ... Respondents


DATED: DECEMBER 19, 2008

The predecessor of Resp. 1 was tenant in 1951-52 and 1955-56. Inquiry started u/S

32 (1B) in 1971- the tenant showed inability to purchase the land- The landlord

sold the land to Resp no 4 in 1973. Fresh inquiry started u/S 32 (1B) on the

application of the tenant.- order of restoration of possession to tenant passed-

confirmed by SDO and MRT- hence the WP by petitioner who purchased the land

from Resp no. 4 in 1987- petitioner stated the land being watan land the tenancy

was terminated under Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 – held-

all the authorities below have held that the petitioner is not entitled to possession of

the land since the tenant was entitled to purchase the land in view of the provisions

of section 32(1B) of the BT&AL Act. The petitioner has already filed a civil suit in

which he has sought to establish his title. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner

does not deserve any relief in the present petition. There is no material on record

to indicate that the tenancy had been terminated in view of the provisions of

section 5 of the Watan Abolition Act. The tenant was in possession of the lands

and continued in possession when he made the application under 32(1B). The

authorities below have rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to the

possession of the lands. Assuming the land in question was watan land and could

not be alienated or leased without the sanction of the State Government, such a

contention was never raised by the erstwhile landlord in any proceeding. The

Petitioner therefore cannot raise it for the first time in this Court.


Tatya Vithoba Dethe

vs.

Madhavdas K. Maysurkar

CORAM :Nishita Mhatre J

DATED :18.11.2008

Tatya was tenant – sons of Tatya purchased land in 1956 – 1985 inquiry u/s.84B on ground that sale was not in favour of Tatya who was tenant – sale declared in valid – therefore present writ petition – held – sons were in joint family and they were cultivating it with Tatya who was Karta of the HUF – therefore petitioners are also tenants u/s.2(18) of the act – Also u/s.40 of the act the tenancy is continued to be in favour of heirs of Tatya as Tatya’s tenancy was never terminated – therefore sale u/s.64(2) (a)(i) is permitted to tenant is actual possession – and it is not in contravention of S.63 and 64, - Even if in contravention it need not be declared invalid as u/s. 84 B the sale can be regularized on payment of penalty


Uday Narayan Apte

vs.

Shankar Ragho Bhadvankar

CORAM :Nishita Mhatre J

DATED :20.10.2008

Predecessor of petitioner was declared as heir in heirship proceedings – During the pendency of the heirship proceedings the management of the land was with Court receiver – Court receiver (Government) appointed Respondent No.1 o 3 to cultivate the land – After the proceedings the possession of land was landed over to predecessor of petitioner and predecessor of Respondents consented to this – 30 years later proceedings u/s. 70(b) filed by Respondents stating that were in possession on tillers day therefore are deemed purchasers – held – there is no documentary evidence to show Respondent were tenants there was no lease in their

favour – The Respondent were put in possession by the court receiver and with the termination of management of the land by the court receiver, the respondent could not continue in possession of the land as tenants. The respondents by continuing to remain in possession of the land, after the court receiver handed over the possession of the lands to the petitioners, are mere trespassers and not deemed tenants u/s 4 of the act. u/s.4 of the Act.- S.2(32) of the Act which was relied upon by the revenue tribunal must be set aside as it is erroneous and contrary to the Provisions of law


Dattatray Ganapat Gorade

vs.

Gourihar Mahadeo Gorade

CORAM :V. C. Daga J

DATED :17.10.2008

Predecessor of petitioner was tenant and purchased u/s.32 G. After his death his son became owner who sold the land to petitioner without mandatory permission u/s.43.- The procedure u/s.84C started and the land was forfeited – the land was allotted to Respondent No.4 – The order of allotment to Respondent No.4 in sought to be challenged under this writ petition – held – since the petitioner did not challenge the order of forfeiture the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order of the allotment – He has not applied for allotment so on that account also he has no locus to challenge the order of allotment in favour of Respondent No.4 – writ jurisdiction – scope limited – no perversity on face of it therefore writ petition dismissed.


Akkatai Rama Porwadi

vs.

Shankar Bhima Magdum


DATED :10.10.2007

Tenant of a mortgager continues to get protection under BTAL Act even after the mortgage is redeemed and that under the provisions of S.2(18) the tenant is “an agriculturist” who holds the land on lease and includes a person who is deemed to be tenant under the provisions of this act.


The Pune Panjarpole Trust

vs.

Baban Gabaji Saste


DATED :5.20.2007

S.2(5) “to cultivate” does not include naturally grown grass – the trust which has taken the land on lease in 1947 for grazing cattle engage in activities of grazing of cattle and cutting the grass to feed animals – none of these activities mean cultivating personally therefore the trust can not be said to be an agriculturist under section 2(2) and therefore the land cannot be held as agricultural land – therefore the amendment of 1957 is not applicable to the Trust petitioner as it applies only to agriculturist who uses the land for grazing of his cattle.


Smt.Akkabai Bapurao Power

V/s.

Lahu Vithu Kurne,

ALONGWITH


1. Smt.Akkabai Bapurao Power

V/s.

Lahu Vithu Kurne,

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2007

The submission of the petitioners that the authorities did not have inherent

jurisdiction to pass an order under 32G since no intimation was given under

Section 32F(1A) of the said Act, also cannot be accepted. Section 32F(1A)

contemplates that after the period of disability is over, tenant has to give intimation

to the landlord who has an intention to purchase the land. The question whether

intimation is given or not, is obviously a question of fact. This question having

been finally decided by the lower authorities in favour of respondent no.1, it cannot

be said, therefore, that the lower authorities did not have inherent jurisdiction to

pass an order under Section 32G.


Shri Raghunath Narayan Bokil

V/s

Shri Vithal Sawala Limbhore,

CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J.

DATE : 11th September, 2007

FACTS- The Respondent No.1- tenant-filed application under section 37 of the

BT & AL Act, seeking restoration of half portion of the land which was being

cultivated by the Petitioner. In these proceedings in the Consent Terms,

Respondent No.1accepted half portion of the said land in question and gave up his

claim in respect of remaining half portion. An order was passed in terms of the

Consent Terms by the Tahsildar. Respondent No.1, thereafter, again, filed

application under section 37 of the BT & AL Act, claiming possession of the

remaining half portion of the suit land. This application was filed on the ground

that the landlord had sold half portion which was in his possession to third party by

registered agreement and, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 37 of the

said Act, he was entitled to get possession of the balance land.

HELD-

A perusal of the section 37 section clearly discloses that the said section gives a

right to the tenant to seek back possession of the land whose tenancy was

terminated. The section, however, carves out two exceptions to the right which

accrues in favour of the tenant. The two conditions being (i) that the tenant cannot

seek right of repossession of the property if the landlord has obtained from the

tenant his refusal to accept the tenancy on the same terms and conditions or (ii) if

the landlord has offered in writing to give the land to the tenant on the same terms

and conditions and the tenant has failed to accept the offer within three months

from the receipt thereof. If these two conditions are not shown to exist then the

tenant would continue to have a right atleast for a period of 12 years from the date

on which the landlord has taken possession of the land for personal cultivation. In

this case, however, after the said application was filed, Consent Terms have been

filed by the parties. The Consent Terms, in terms state that the tenant has given up

his claim of tenancy and he has done so in writing of the Consent Terms which

were accepted by Tahsildar when an order to that effect was passed in terms of the

Consent Terms. The tenant, having accepted in writing and having refused to

accept the tenancy in respect of half portion of the land, it was not open for the

tenant to re-agitate the issue by filing second application under section 37.

Particularly because when the first application under section 37 was filed by

Respondent No.1, he was seeking the entire land. It was alleged in the first

application that the entire land was given by the Petitioner to Respondent Nos. 3 to

5 and after having made this allegation seeking return of the entire land, he had

accepted half portion of the said land. Therefore, it cannot be said that Respondent

No.1 had refused to accept the tenancy in respect of the remaining land on the

same terms and conditions.

Bombay High Court

/ 1 /

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


Vithal Shankar Dokhe

V/s.

Bhavdu Sakharam Dokhe

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

DATED :6th/7

th

SEPTEMBER, 2007.

The landlady was a widow- In view of provisions of Section 31 and Section 32F ,

tenancy proceedings U/s.32G were postponed. On 03/06/1970, the suit lands were

gifted away by the landlady through a gift deed to the Petitioner herein. the

purchase price was paid pursuant to the requirement U/s.32F(I)(a) have been

complied with by the tenants. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has observed

that as when the proceedings U/s.32G were dropped in the year 1968 at that time

tenants had already declared their intention to purchase the suit lands

even when the landlady was alive. However, it was noted that tenants had paid the

purchase price on 18/01/1971 pursuant to order of Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T.

This purchase price has been paid within six months from the date on which land

was gifted by the landlady to the present Petitioner and therefore, within period

of six months from the date on which landlady ceases to have any interest in the

land therefore the intimation U/s 32F (1) (a) was, in fact, given in the prescribed

form to the concerned person namely landlady by the Petitioner herein.

Bombay High Court

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION


Shripad Yeshwant Kulkarni

V/s

Shri Mahadeo Shankar Jadhav

CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J.

DATE : 2

nd August, 2007

Land belongs to inor who was given adoption the natural guardian of the

petitioner viz his mother who had taken him in adoption had given the land on rent

to the respondents tenants. She had, in turn, issued receipts in respect of the

payment of the rent from time to time – an intimation was given by brother of the

minor for arrears of the rent and proceedings U/s 29 initiated by the brother for

taking possession back on the ground of arrears of rent- held- the brother is a third

party and not connected with the suit property therefore intimation by him can

never be construed to be an intimation within the meaning of section 14(1)(a) or

section 25(2) of the said B.T. & A.L. Act. The natural mother of the petitioner

during the period when the petitioner was a minor having issued the rent receipts

and having given evidence before authorities that she had received rent, there was

no occasion for the tenants respondents herein to have taken any cognizance of

such notices being issued by the natural brother of the petitioner. Consequently, in

view of the aforesaid, notices which were issued by the natural brother of the

petitioner were illegal and could not be construed to be notices under the aforesaid

sections and, therefore, the petitioner, could not, on the basis of these notices

which were per se illegal, would have taken out proceedings for recovery of

possession under section 29 of the B.T. & A.L. Act.

bt and al act

Documents

akkabai bapurao

lahu vithu

remaining

half portion

high court

court receiver

review jurisdiction

appellate