1982 (4) TMI 297 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the interim injunction granted by Modi, J.
2. Applicability of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 to the disputed lands.
3. Validity of the reference made to the Mamlatdar under Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
4. Effect of the notifications under Section 88 of the Bombay Tenancy Act on the plaintiffs' tenancy claims.
5. Relevance of Section 43-C and the proviso to the Bombay Tenancy Act in the context of the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Interim Injunction Granted by Modi, J.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent the appellants from trespassing, dispossessing, or constructing on the disputed lands. Modi, J. granted an interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession or constructing on the land, while allowing limited construction of a compound wall and facilities along the periphery. The appellants contested this order, leading to the current appeal.

2. Applicability of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 to the Disputed Lands
The plaintiffs claimed tenancy rights under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, asserting adverse possession and tenancy since 1903. However, the defendants argued that the lands were excluded from the Tenancy Act's provisions due to notifications under Section 88 (1) (b) reserving the lands for non-agricultural and industrial development.

3. Validity of the Reference Made to the Mamlatdar under Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act
Modi, J. referred the issue of tenancy to the Mamlatdar under Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar and the Additional Collector subsequently ruled that the Tenancy Act did not apply, as the lands were within the municipal limits and reserved for non-agricultural purposes. The plaintiffs' revision application is pending before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

4. Effect of the Notifications under Section 88 of the Bombay Tenancy Act on the Plaintiffs' Tenancy Claims
The notifications dated 29th March 1957, under Section 88 (1) (b) of the Tenancy Act, excluded the lands from the Act's provisions, making any tenancy claims by the plaintiffs untenable. The court noted that the imperative language of Section 88 ("Nothing in the foregoing provisions of the Act shall apply") effectively nullified any tenancy rights under Sections 1 to 87-A of the Act.

5. Relevance of Section 43-C and the Proviso to the Bombay Tenancy Act in the Context of the Case
The plaintiffs argued that their tenancy rights were preserved under the proviso to Section 43-C. However, the court found this argument irrelevant, as Section 43-C pertained to lands within municipal limits and the proviso aimed to restore rights affected by amendments in 1952 and 1955, which did not apply to lands reserved under Section 88 (1) (b). The court emphasized that the lands in question were already within the Malad municipal limits before the critical date, thus not benefiting from the proviso to Section 43-C.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the reference to the Mamlatdar was unnecessary and invalid, as the lands were excluded from the Tenancy Act's provisions by the 1957 notification. Consequently, the interim injunction granted by Modi, J. was to be reconsidered without regard to the plaintiffs' tenancy claims under the Tenancy Act. The appeal was allowed, setting aside Justice Kania's order and directing the Notice of Motion to be heard on merits in June 1982.