1968 (11) TMI 104 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under Section 32G declaring the purchase ineffective.
2. Compliance with the mandatory requirement of communication of the order under Section 32G.
3. Validity of the order under Section 32P for the disposal of land.
4. Jurisdiction and procedural correctness of the Revenue Tribunal and lower authorities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order under Section 32G declaring the purchase ineffective:

The Lands Tribunal declared the purchase ineffective under Section 32G(3) on October 15, 1959, due to the tenant's absence on October 6, 1959. The Tribunal failed to consider that the tenant had appeared on previous dates and was absent only on the last date. The mechanical passing of the order without exploring whether the tenant was genuinely unwilling to purchase the land was deemed improper. The inquiry under Section 32G is inquisitorial, not adversarial, requiring the Tribunal to actively determine the tenant's willingness. The Tribunal's failure to record the tenant's statement properly and its mechanical approach rendered the order invalid.

2. Compliance with the mandatory requirement of communication of the order under Section 32G:

The proviso to Section 32G(3) mandates that any order passed in default of appearance must be communicated to the parties, granting them a right to apply for review within 60 days. The petitioner claimed that the order was never communicated, supported by a sworn affidavit, which was not rebutted by the opponents. The Revenue Tribunal erred by not investigating whether the order was communicated. The failure to communicate the order deprived the petitioner of the right to review, making the order ineffective.

3. Validity of the order under Section 32P for the disposal of land:

The Mamlatdar, acting under Section 32P, ordered the land to be surrendered to the landlord without determining the refundable amount to the tenant, violating Section 32P(3). The Revenue Tribunal partially quashed the order, remanding the matter for compliance with Section 32P(3). However, since the order under Section 32G was invalid, the subsequent order under Section 32P was also ultra vires. The Tribunal failed to quash the entire order under Section 32P, necessitating a complete annulment.

4. Jurisdiction and procedural correctness of the Revenue Tribunal and lower authorities:

The Revenue Tribunal and lower authorities dismissed the tenant's appeal as time-barred without addressing the non-communication of the order under Section 32G. The Tribunal's refusal to consider the communication issue and the improper handling of the review application violated procedural fairness. The Tribunal's reliance on the outward register entry without examining witnesses was insufficient. The Tribunal's and lower authorities' failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements and their improper exercise of jurisdiction necessitated quashing their orders.

Conclusion:

The High Court quashed the orders of the Revenue Tribunal and lower authorities under Sections 32G and 32P. The matter was remanded to the Lands Tribunal for a fresh statutory inquiry under Section 32G, starting from recording the tenant's statement. The rule was made absolute in both petitions, with costs awarded to the petitioner.