9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of orders under Article 227 of the Constitution regarding forfeiture of land and purchase price; Constitutional validity of section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act; Recovery of purchase money as an arrear of land revenue. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the orders declaring the sale of land invalid and forfeiting it to the Government under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that section 84C of the Act is unconstitutional as it contravenes Article 31(2) of the Constitution by acquiring property without compensation. The Court held that section 84C does not violate Article 31(2) as it deals with acquisition for a public purpose, thus upholding the constitutionality of the section. 2. Section 84C allows for the forfeiture of land to the Government if a sale is declared invalid by the Mamlatdar. The Court found this provision valid under Article 31(1) as it restricts the owner from alienating land in contravention of the law. However, the provision regarding the forfeiture of the purchase price to the Government was deemed unconstitutional as it did not specify the act rendering the purchaser liable to the penalty, thus failing to meet the requirements of a complete penalty provision. 3. The Court ruled that the State Government cannot recover the purchase money as an arrear of land revenue if it cannot be forfeited to the Government. The petitions were partially successful, quashing orders of forfeiture and recovery of purchase money in some cases. The Court held that the purchase price belongs to the purchaser and cannot be forfeited in the absence of appropriate legal provisions. 4. In cases where the purchaser was not an agriculturist and the sale was invalid under section 84C, the Court quashed orders of forfeiture and recovery of purchase money. The Court emphasized that without proper legal provisions, the purchase money cannot be forfeited to the Government. The orders of the Mamlatdar, Prant Officer, and Bombay Revenue Tribunal regarding forfeiture of purchase money were quashed in these cases. 5. The Court made the rule absolute in the petitions, quashing orders related to forfeiture and recovery of purchase money. No costs were awarded in any of the cases, and the orders were made accordingly.
|
