1991 (5) TMI 252 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective effect of the second proviso to Section 88(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
2. Validity of the sale by the son of the landlord during the landlord's lifetime and under disability.

Summary:

1. Retrospective Effect of the Second Proviso to Section 88(1)(b):
The appellant became a deemed purchaser of the leased agricultural land by operation of Section 32(1) from April 1, 1957. The landlord's insanity deferred the right to purchase under Section 32-F. Notifications u/s 88(1)(b) exempted certain areas from the Act's provisions, including the appellant's land. The second proviso to Section 88(1)(b) was introduced by the Gujarat Amendment Act, 1965, and it specified that transfers or acquisitions of land in newly added areas between the notification and October 9, 1964, would be treated as if they were made in areas to which the clause applies. The Court held that the second proviso has retrospective effect, meaning the provisions of Sections 1 to 87 do not apply to the added areas and are deemed never to have applied. However, this does not divest the appellant's statutory right as a deemed purchaser, as the sale by the landlord's son was invalid.

2. Validity of the Sale by the Son of the Landlord:
The landlord, being the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family, was under disability due to lunacy, and his son sold the land to the respondent. The Court held that the son had no right to sell the property during the father's lifetime without a court order under the Indian Lunacy Act. The sale was deemed illegal and intended to defeat the appellant's statutory right. The appellant's right as a deemed purchaser was not affected by the subsequent notification u/s 88(1)(b). The Court set aside the orders of the High Court, Tribunal, and District Collector, confirming the Mamlatdar's decision in favor of the appellant.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's statutory right as a deemed purchaser was upheld. The sale by the landlord's son was invalid, and the retrospective effect of the second proviso to Section 88(1)(b) did not divest the appellant's rights.