9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. When and under what circumstances does the character of agricultural land change to non-agricultural land upon permission being granted by the Collector. 2. Whether the bar of alienation under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the requirements under Section 63 cease to be applicable upon such permission. 3. Whether additional evidence (certified copy of the N.A. order) should be permitted at the stage of Second Appeal. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Change of Character from Agricultural to Non-Agricultural Land: The central issue was determining the precise moment when agricultural land transforms into non-agricultural land upon the Collector granting permission for non-agricultural use. The judgment clarified that the mere granting of permission does not automatically alter the land's character. The alteration occurs only when the land is actually put to non-agricultural use, as per the conditions specified in the order. Specifically, Clause 2(iii) of the N.A. permission required the commencement of non-agricultural use within six months, failing which the permission would be deemed canceled. The court held that the transformation of the land's character happens from the date when the land is put to non-agricultural use, not from the date of the permission order. 2. Applicability of Section 43 and Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act: The court examined whether the bar of alienation under Section 43 and the requirements under Section 63 ceased to apply once N.A. permission was granted. It was determined that since the land's character did not change merely upon the granting of permission, the provisions of Sections 43 and 63 continued to apply until the land was actually put to non-agricultural use. Hence, the sale of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist without the necessary permissions remained invalid. The court upheld the view that the sale deed executed on 20th March 1965 was invalid as the land had not been put to non-agricultural use by that date. 3. Admission of Additional Evidence at the Second Appeal Stage: The appellants sought to introduce a certified copy of the N.A. order dated 9-10-1964 as additional evidence. The court noted that the production of this document was fundamental to the plaintiffs' case and should have been presented during the trial or appeal stages. Despite this, the court allowed the document to be taken on record due to its relevance in deciding the points of law. However, the court emphasized that normally, such additions should not be permitted at the Second Appeal stage. The court concluded that the document's late introduction did not alter the fact that the land's character had not changed because the conditions for non-agricultural use had not been met. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellate court's decision that the sale deed dated 20th March 1965 was invalid due to the land's continued agricultural character. The court reiterated that the transformation of land from agricultural to non-agricultural requires actual commencement of non-agricultural use, not merely the granting of permission. Consequently, the provisions of Sections 43 and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act remained applicable, and the sale to a non-agriculturist without the necessary permissions was invalid. The court also allowed the introduction of the certified copy of the N.A. order as part of the record but did not find it sufficient to change the outcome of the case.
|
