1983 (5) TMI 266 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deemed purchase of land by tenant under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
2. Jurisdictional errors by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under Section 32-G.
3. Validity of proceedings under Section 14 read with Section 29 of the Tenancy Act.
4. Impact of landlord's disability under Section 32-F.
5. Subsequent sale and possession claims by third parties.
6. Determination of purchase price and recovery of possession under Section 84.
7. Validity of orders passed by Tenancy Aval Karkoon and Tribunal.
8. Estoppel and legal effect of tenant's statements.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deemed Purchase of Land by Tenant under Section 32:
The land in question was held by Janardhan as a tenant on April 1, 1957, the "tillers' day," under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Section 32 of the Act provides that every tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land from his landlord, free from all encumbrances, provided other conditions of the section are satisfied. Thus, by operation of law, Janardhan became the deemed purchaser of the land on April 1, 1957. This statutory transfer extinguished the landlord's title and vested it in the tenant.

2. Jurisdictional Errors by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under Section 32-G:
The Tribunal was required to determine the price of the land for compulsory purchase under Section 32-G. However, it erroneously postponed the sale, claiming that the recorded owner, Ashoklal, was a minor. The Tribunal failed to recognize that Tarachand, the landlord, was the recorded owner on April 1, 1957, and was under no disability. The Tribunal's failure to exercise jurisdiction correctly rendered its proceedings and orders null and void.

3. Validity of Proceedings under Section 14 read with Section 29 of the Tenancy Act:
The Tenancy Aval Karkoon entertained a petition for recovery of possession from Janardhan under Section 14 read with Section 29, which allows landlords to recover possession if the tenant defaults on rent. However, since Janardhan had already become the deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957, the relationship of landlord and tenant no longer existed. Therefore, the Tenancy Aval Karkoon had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and its order for possession was null and void.

4. Impact of Landlord's Disability under Section 32-F:
Section 32-F postpones the date of compulsory purchase if the landlord is a minor, widow, or under any mental or physical disability on the tillers' day. Since Tarachand, the landlord, was under no such disability on April 1, 1957, Section 32-F did not apply. Consequently, Janardhan's deemed purchase was effective from April 1, 1957, and could not be postponed.

5. Subsequent Sale and Possession Claims by Third Parties:
Following the erroneous orders, Ashoklal, acting through his next friend, sold the land to petitioners. However, since Janardhan was the deemed purchaser from April 1, 1957, Ashoklal had no title to transfer. The subsequent sale and possession claims by the petitioners were therefore invalid.

6. Determination of Purchase Price and Recovery of Possession under Section 84:
The Tribunal eventually determined the purchase price, recognizing Janardhan as the deemed purchaser. The Assistant Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed this determination. Additionally, under Section 84, the Assistant Collector held that the petitioners' occupation of the land was illegal, as they acquired no title from Ashoklal. The respondent was entitled to recover possession.

7. Validity of Orders Passed by Tenancy Aval Karkoon and Tribunal:
The orders passed by the Tenancy Aval Karkoon and the Tribunal, which held that the date of compulsory purchase was postponed, were without jurisdiction and null and void. The High Court affirmed this, stating that all subsequent proceedings based on these orders were ab initio void.

8. Estoppel and Legal Effect of Tenant's Statements:
Mr. Lalit contended that Janardhan's statement in 1967, expressing willingness to hand over possession, should estop the respondent from claiming otherwise. However, the Court noted that such statements, likely influenced by landlords, cannot defeat statutory rights. Even if Janardhan relinquished his right, the land would be at the disposal of the Collector under Section 32-P, not the landlord.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeals and confirming that Janardhan became the deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957. All subsequent proceedings and orders based on the erroneous assumption of postponed sale were null and void. The petitioners acquired no title from Ashoklal, and the respondent was entitled to recover possession. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the deposited amount was directed to be paid to the respondent.