9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the interpretation of lease agreements for agricultural lands, determination of the purpose of lease, and the applicability of Section 43A of the Bombay Tenancy Act to single-person leases. Interpretation of Lease Agreements: The appeal arose from a proceeding u/s 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, regarding the determination of the price of land leased for growing sugarcane. The Additional Tahsildar initially dropped the proceeding, but it was remitted back for fresh inquiry. The Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the Additional Tahsildar's order, stating that the landlord failed to prove the specific purpose of the lease. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal later restored the Additional Tahsildar's order, emphasizing the evidence of sugarcane cultivation on the land since 1946. Judicial Review of Tribunal's Decision: The tenant challenged the Tribunal's decision in a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court overturned the Tribunal's finding, stating that the Sub-Divisional Officer's original finding was consistent with the evidence on record. The High Court emphasized that the revisional authority cannot dislodge findings consistent with evidence and law. Applicability of Section 43A: The High Court ruled that Section 43A of the Act does not apply to single-person leases, as it exempts leases granted to "any bodies or persons" for specific agricultural purposes. The Court highlighted that the plural expression in the provision should not be interpreted to cover singular leases. Court's Decision: Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Sub-Divisional Officer's finding was erroneous and upheld the Tribunal's decision that the land was leased for sugarcane cultivation. The Court criticized the High Court's interpretation of Section 43A, stating that the plural expression should include the singular to serve the Act's purpose. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Tribunal's decision without costs.
|
