1978 (12) TMI 193 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Specific performance of contract for sale of agricultural land.
2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist.
3. Validity of certificate issued by Mamlatdar.
4. Application of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
5. Reference of issues to Mamlatdar under Sections 70, 85, and 85A of the Tenancy Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Specific Performance of Contract for Sale of Agricultural Land:
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 15th December 1965, for the sale of land. The contract was extended by a supplementary agreement dated 26th April 1966. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the High Court upheld this dismissal, primarily because the plaintiff was not an agriculturist, which is a requirement under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to Decide Whether the Plaintiff is an Agriculturist:
The Civil Court initially held that it had the jurisdiction to decide whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist, considering it an incidental issue in a suit for specific performance. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the jurisdiction to decide whether a person is an agriculturist lies exclusively with the Mamlatdar as per Section 70(a) of the Tenancy Act. This jurisdiction is not shared with Civil Courts due to the explicit ouster of jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Tenancy Act.

3. Validity of Certificate Issued by Mamlatdar:
The plaintiff produced a certificate (Ext. 78) issued by the Mamlatdar, certifying that he was an agricultural laborer. Both the trial court and the High Court found this certificate to have no evidentiary value and invalid. The Supreme Court did not address the validity of this certificate as the appellant did not contest this issue before it.

4. Application of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:
Section 63 prohibits the sale of agricultural land to non-agriculturists. The Supreme Court emphasized that if the plaintiff is not an agriculturist, the contract for the sale of agricultural land cannot be enforced as it would be contrary to the statutory prohibition and public policy.

5. Reference of Issues to Mamlatdar under Sections 70, 85, and 85A of the Tenancy Act:
The Supreme Court explained that if an issue arises in a civil suit that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar under the Tenancy Act, the Civil Court must refer the issue to the Mamlatdar as per Section 85A. This ensures that the competent authority under the Tenancy Act decides the issue, and the Civil Court then disposes of the suit based on the Mamlatdar's decision. The legislative intent is to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure that issues under the Tenancy Act are decided by the designated authority.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decrees of the trial court and the High Court, and remanded the suit to the trial court. The trial court was directed to refer the issue of whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist to the Mamlatdar and proceed according to the Mamlatdar's decision. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for expeditious handling of the case due to its age.