http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: LAXMINARAYAN DIPCHAND MAHESHWARI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/02/1975

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

CITATION:  1975 AIR 1036            1975 SCR  (3) 537  1975 SCC  (1) 487

ACT: Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (vidarbha Region) Act. 1958,  ss.43(14A),  46(1)  and  49A  (1)-Scope  of  46,   if protected  by , Art. 31A.

HEADNOTE: Section 40 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural  Lands (Vidarbha  Region  Act 1958, provides  that  notwithstanding anything ontained in Chapter 111. (containing ss. 38 to  57) the  ownership of all lands held by tenants which  they  are enttled  to purchase from their landlords under any  of  the provisions  of chapter, shall stand transferred to and  vest in such tenants on and from April 1961. from which date such tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of qua  lands. Section 43 (14A) provides that if a tenant fails to exercise hi,,  right of purchase under s. 41 etc. the land  shall  be deemed  to  be surrendered to the landlords; and  s.  49A(1) provides  that notwithstanding anything contained  in  ss.41 and 46 etc., on and from April 1. 1963 the ownership of  all land  held by a tenant (being land which is not  transferred to  the tenant under s. 46 or which is not purchased by  him under ss. 41 and 56), shall vest in such tenant. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal took action under s. 46 read with  a. 48 of (he Act for fixing the price of the  land  in possession of the respondent who, Was personally cultivating the  land as a cultivating tenant under the  appellant-land- ford.   The  appellant  contested  the  proceedings  without success before the authorities under the Act as well as in a writ  petition in the High Court.  In appeal to this  Court, it  was contended (1) that s. 49a is not applicable  to  the present  case  as the opening non-obstante  clause  of  that section   makes  no  reference  to  s.   43(14A)  while   it specifically  mentions ss. 41 and 46; (2) Since  the  tenant had not exercised his right to purchase the land in question under  s.  43(14A)  the land shall be deemed  to  have  been surrendered  to the appellant and no question  of  statutory transfer  of  ownership  of the land would  arise;  and  (3) Section  46  is violative of Aets. 14 and  19(1)(f)  of  the Constitution and is not saved by Art. 31A. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (1),Section 49A is not attracted in the instant  case since  that section provides for ownership of land which  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

not  transferred to the tenant under s. 46 or which  is  not purchased  by the tenant under s. 41 or s. 50.  The  present case  deals with compulsory transfer of ownership  under  s. 46. [539H] (2)  Under s. 46 the tenants became full owners of the lands by operation of law and there is a statutory vesting of  the lands in them.  This legal vesting by operation of s. 46  on and from April 1, 1961, cannot be divested in the absence of any  clear provision tinder the Act.  Section 43(14A)  is  a prospective  provision  and  was introduced in  the  Act  by amendment on March 1, 1962 and has no application. [540A-D] (3)  Section   46   has  achieved  the   twin   purpose   of extinguishment  of the right of the landlord in  the  estate and conferment of the same right upon the tenant.  Once that happens,  there  is, in one breath,  extinguishment  of  the right in favour of the State and the conferment of the  said right in favour of the tenant.  Article 81A  is  therefore  clearly  applicable  and  it  cannot  be contained that there is violaion of Arts. 14 Ind 19.  [541A- C]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil APPeal  No.  2609  of 1969. Appeal  by Special Leave from the judgment and  order  datcd the 1Oth April, 1969 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in spccial Civil Appln.  No. 1039 of 1966. W.   S.  Barlingay,  Sheil  Sethi and Ganpat  Rai,  for  the appellants. 538 E.C. Agarwala, for respondent no. 2. M. C. Bhandare and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI,  J.  This petit ion by special  leave  is  directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court rejecting  the appellant-landlords’ application under articles 226 and  227 of  the Constitution with regard to a revenue  matter  under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha  Region) Act,   1958  (briefly  the  Act).   The  second   respondent (hereinafter  the  respondent) was  the  cultivating  tenant under  the appellant-landlords.  It was never in dispute  in any  of  the  earlier proceedings that  the  respondent  was personally cultivating the land as a tenant.    On a report of the patwari submitted on April 6, 1963, the Agricultural  Lands  Tribunal, Malkapur, took  action  under section  46 read with section 48 of the Act for  fixing  the price  of  the land in possession of  the  respondent.   The appellants  contested the proceeding without success and  an appeal  preferred  before the Special Deputy  Collector  for Tenancy  met  with  the  same  fate.   The  appellants  then preferred  a  petition of revision  before  the  Maharashtra Revenue  Tribunal,  Nagpur.  That also failed.   As  noticed earlier  eventually  the High Court also rejected  the  writ application.  The short question that had been  persistently raised   in  all  the  earlier  proceedings  and  has   been strenuously  urged by Dr. Barlingay before us is whether  in view of section 43(14A) of the Act the order of the  Revenue Tribunal is legally sustainable. In order to appreciate the above submission it is  necessary to look at the relevant provisions. Section 41 (1) reads as follows               41  (1).   "Notwithstanding  anything  to  the               contrary in any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             law,  usage  or contract but  subject  to  the               provisions   of  sections  42  to   44   (both               inclusive)  a tenant other than  an  occupancy               tenant shall, in the case of land held by  him               as a tenant, be entitled to purchase from  the               landlord the land held by him as a tenant  and               cultivated by him personally". It  is not necessary to quote section 42 which provides  for the extent of land which a tenant may purchase under section 41.  Section  43  (1) (a) and (14A) upon which much  stress  has been laid may be set out :               43 (1) (a). "A tenant who desires to  exercise               the  right conferred by section 41 shall  make               an offer to the landlord stating the price  at               which  he  is prepared to purchase  the  land,               such price not exceeding twelve times the rent               payable  by him and the depreciated  value  of               any   structures,   wells   and    embankments               constructed  and permanent fixtures  made  and               the value of any trees planted on the land  by               the  landlord  after the. period of  the  last               Settlement  or,  where no such  Settlement  is               made during the period of thirty years  before               the com-                539               mencement  of this Act and the amount  of  the               arrears  of rent, if any, lawfully due on  the               day on which the offer is made".               43(14A).   "If a tenant fails to exercise  his               right of purchase under section 41 in  respect               of  any  land  or the  purchase  of  any  land               becomes ineffective, the land shall be  deemed               to have been surrendered to the landlord,  and               thereupon  the provisions of sub-sections  (1)               and  (2)  of section 21 and Chapter  VI  shall               apply  to  such land as if the land  was  sur-               rendered by the tenant under section 20".               The next material section is 46(1) which reads               as under               46(1).   "Notwithstanding  anything  in   this               Chapter or any law for the time being in force               or  any  custom, usage, decree,  ,contract  or               grant to the contrary, with effect on and from               the first day of April 1961, the ownership  of               all  lands  held  by tenants  which  they  are               entitled  to  purchase  from  their  landlords               under  any of the provisions of  this  Chapter               shall  stand transferred to and vest in,  such               tenants and from such date such tenants  shall               be deemed to be the full owners of such lands               Section 49A (1) may also be read;               49A(1).   "Notwithstanding anything  contained               in  section  41 or 46, or any  custom,  usage,               decree, contract or grant to the contrary  but               subject to the provisions of this section,  on               and from the 1st day of April 1963 the  owner-               ship of all land held by a tenant (being  land               which  is not transferred to the tenant  under               section  46 or which is not purchased  by  him               under  section  41 or 50) shall  Stand  trans-               ferred to and vest in, such tenant who  shall,               from  the date aforesaid, be deemed to be  the               full  owner  of  such land, if  such  land  is               cultivated by him personally, and.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

It  is submitted by Dr. Barlingay that since the tenant  had not  exercised his right to purchase the land  in  question, under  sub-section  (14A) of section 43 the  land  shall  be deemed  to  have been surrendered to the  landlords  and  no question  of  statutory transfer of ownership  of  the  land would  arise.   He  also submits that  section  49A  is  not applicable  in the instant case as the opening  non-obstante clause of that section makes no reference to section 43(14A) while specifically mentions section 41 and section 46. We may at once say that section 49A is not attracted in  the instant  case  since the section provides for  ownership  of land which is not transferred to the tenant under section 46 or which is not purchased by the tenant under section 41  or section 50.  It is admitted by the learned counsel that  the land  in  question  was not purchased by  the  tenant  under section 41 or under section 50.  The only contention is that this  land  cannot  be the  subject  matter  for  compulsory transfer of ownership under section 46. 540 Sub-section 14(A) of section 43 was inserted by  Maharashtra Act 2 of 1962 with effect from March 1, 1962.  On the  other hand  section  46(1) brings about a legal  consequence  with regard              to              transfer              of ownership  of  land to tenants on and  from  April  1,,1961. Section46(1)   provides  clearly  and   unambiguously   that notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   Chapter    III (containing  sections 38 to 57) the ownership of  all  lands held  by tenants, which they are entitled to  purchase  from their landlords under any of the provisions of this Chapter, shall  stand transferred to and vest in such tenants on  and from  April 1, 1961, from which date such tenants  shall  be deemed  to be the full owners of such lands.   The  tenants, therefore,  become  full  owners of the  tenanted  lands  by operation  of  law and there is a statutory vesting  of  the lands  in them.- This legal vesting by operation of  section 46 on and from April 1, 1961, cannot be divested in  absence of any clear provision under ’the Act to that effect only by reference  to a prospective provision like subsection  (14A) of section 43 which came by an amendment much later on March 1,  1962. it is, therefore, not even necessary  to  consider the  legal  effect  of the amalgam of  the  three  sections, namely,  sub-section  (14A) of section 43,  section  46  and section  49A in this appeal.  We are satisfied  the  revenue authorities were justified in taking action under section 46 read with section 48 and the order cannot be challenged  a", unsustainable in law. The learned counsel next contends that section 46 of the Act is violative of article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution and is not  saved by article 31A which is not applicable.   Counsel submits that under section 46 there is no acquisition by the State  of  any  estate  or of  any  rights  therein  or  the extinguishment  or modification of any such rights in  order to  come within the saving provision of article 31A(1)  (a). According  to  counsel  the land  is  transferred  from  the landlord  and vests in the tenant by virtue of  section  46. There  is,  therefore, no acquisition by the  State  of  any estate  or  of any rights therein nor is  there  any  extin- guishment  or modification of such rights in favour  of  the State.  Section. 46 and such other provisions in the Act are in  furtherance  of agrarian reforms which are  one  of  the principal  objects of the Act., The fact that section 46  in terms  transfers the land from landlord to tenant and  vests the  ownership in the latter does not mean that there is  no extinguishment of the estate or its rights in favour of  the State  for the sole reason that there is no express  mention

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

of  such  acquisition  by the State in  terms.   The  scheme underlying the provisions may be briefly stated.  The  State being  the paramount Owner of the lands had earlier  granted the  land to the tenure holders who are the landlords  under the Act.  In order to transfer the land to tenants from  the landlords the first step the 541 State  will have to take is to extinguish the rights of  the tenure holders tinder the paramount owner.  It is only  then that  transfer  of the same land to the  tenants  under  the landlords will be possible.  Section 46, in our opinion, has achieved the twin purpose of extinguishment of the right  of the landlord in the estate and conferment of the same  right upon  the tenant.  Once that happens there is in one  breath extinguishment  of the right in favour of the State and  the conferment of the said light in favour of the tenant.  There is  therefore, no substance in the contention  that  article 31A is not applicable in this case to enable the  appellants to  challenge the provision under article 19(1) (f ) of  the Constitution.   The  objection  of the  learned  counsel  is therefore, with,out substance.  Since article 31A is clearly applicable, we need not ,deal with the objection of  counsel on the score of violation of article 14 of the Constitution. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. V.P.S.                    Appeal dismissed.. 542