http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MUGAJI LAXMAN PADULE THROUGH HIS HEIRS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TRIMBAK WASUDEO KULKARNI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1989

BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR  995            1989 SCR  (1) 238  1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 305 JT 1989 (1)   297  1989 SCALE  (1)186

ACT:     Bombay  Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,  1948:  Sec- tions 32A, 32G, 32P, 63 and 84C--Purchase of land by  person who  holds land in excess of ceiling area--Validity of  such purchase.

HEADNOTE:     The appellants are the heirs of one A who was the tenant of  the land in question for about three decades before  the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 was  enacted. Though he was entitled to purchase the land on  satisfaction of  certain conditions, it was admitted before the  authori- ties  that he did not satisfy the conditions. The  landlords claimed  possession of the land. A was already possessed  of land  beyond the ceiling area prescribed by Sec. 32A of  the Act  and he, therefore, did not claim to have purchased  the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Since  in such  cases. Sec. 32P provides that the former tenant  would be  summarily evicted and the land would be  surrendered  to the  landlord, the land in question went to  the  landlords. The appellants claimed that on a partition in the family  of the  landlords the land in question was allotted to some  of the  respondents  and A purchased the same for Rs.  3000  on 3.6.1960.  It was contended that the land-holding of  A  was within  the  ceiling area following the  partition  in  1959 between him and his sons.     Suppressing the sale of the land and without  impleading the  appellants,  the respondents moved the  authorities  in 1963  for  recognising their claim.  The  Agricultural  Land Tribunal  and the Additional Mamlatdar upheld the  claim  of the  respondents, relying on an enquiry under  Section  32G, wherein the right of A as a tenant was negatived. the appel- lants filed an appeal before the collector, who remanded the matter  to the Mamlatdar. The Additional Mamlatdar  observed that since the tenant had purchased the land from the  land- lords, the proceeding was fit to be dropped and it would  be appropriate  to deal with the case under Section  84C  which provided holding of an enquiry to decide the validity of the transfer. After such enquiry the Agricultural Lands Tribunal held that the purchase made on 3.6.1960 by A was lawful  and upheld  the claim of the appellants. This was  confirmed  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

appeal and one of the respondents filed a revision  applica- tion before the 239 Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the land owned by A did not belong to the joint family and his sons had no share therein  and so the alleged partition could not be  accepted or  recognised. And in 1960, A was possessed of land  beyond the  ceiling area and was not entitled to  purchase  further land  from respondents. The appellant moved the  High  Court under  Article 227 of the Constitution. The High  Court  re- jected  the  petition.  This appeal, by  Special  Leave,  is against the High Court’s Judgment. Dismissing the appeal,     HELD: The ban on transfers which may affect the  ceiling law is more severe under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Sec. 63 directs that no sale of land  shall be  valid in favour of a person who will, after  such  sale, hold  land exceeding two-thirds of the ceiling  area  deter- mined  under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling  on Holdings) Act, 1961. The fact that on the death of A in 1962 his  earlier  holdings were inherited by his heirs  and  the respective holdings, therefore, came below the ceiling area, is  immaterial because the disputed land was purchased by  A himself  in 1960. It has to be remembered that, as has  been held  by the Revenue Tribunal, the other  lands  exclusively belonged  to  A and exceeded the ceiling area. The  sale  on 3.6.1960 must, therefore, be held to be illegal and inopera- tive. [241G-H; 242A]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 950  (N) of 1973.     From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.1972 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2826 of 1969.     Pinaki Misra, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Sunita Sharma for  the Appellants. V .N. Ganpule and V.D. Khanna for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SHARMA,  J. The subject matter of this appeal  is  13.30 acres  of  land in Sholapur District, within  the  State  of Maharashtra.  The  appellants are the heirs  of  one  Mugaji Laxman  Padule, who was the tenant of the land for  about  3 decades before the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was 240 enacted.  Under the provisions of the Act, Mugaji was  enti- tled to purchase the land on satisfaction of certain  condi- tions.  Admittedly he did not satisfy these  conditions  and said so before the authorities concerned. The landlords  who are  now represented by the respondents, were claiming  pos- session  of  the area under the Act.  Mugaji,  subsequently, made  a claim to the Land on another basis. On his death  in 1962, his heirs the appellants were substituted. The  matter was  considered  by several authorities under the  Act,  who ultimately  rejected the appellants’ case.  The  appellants, thereafter  moved  the Bombay High Court by  an  application under  Article 227 of the Constitution of India,  which  was rejected by the impugned judgment.     2. The procedure for the tenant to purchase the land  is laid down in Sec. 32G of the Act. It enjoins the Agricultur- al  Land  Tribunal constituted under Sec. 67  to  publish  a public  notice calling upon the tenants, the  landlords  and any other interested person to appear before it on a  speci-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

fied date. The Tribunal is also required to issue individual notices to the landlords and the tenants, and thereafter  to decide  the competing cases. Sec. 32A limits the right of  a tenant  holding  other Lands to such area  only  which  will raise his holding to the extent of the ceiling area.  Admit- tedly  Mugaji  was  already possessed of  lands  beyond  the ceiling  area and he, therefore, did not claim to have  pur- chased  the  land in accordance with the provisions  of  the Act.  In a situation where a tenant is not able to  success- fully claim the land, it has to be disposed of in the manner provided  in Sec. 32P, which states that the  former  tenant would be summarily evicted and the land would be surrendered to  the landlord. In the present case the land in  question, thus,  went to the landlords. According to the case  of  the appellants,  on a partition in the family of  the  landlords the disputed land was allotted to the share of the  respond- ents  2 to 4 and Mugaji purchased the same for a sum of  Rs. 3,000 from them on 3.6.1960. The appellants alleged that  by this date, i.e., 3.6.1960 the land held by Mugaji was within the  ceiling area following a partition between him and  his sons on 13.10.1959.     3.  The respondents moved the authorities under the  Act in  1963 for recognising their claim. They did  not  implead the  appellants  and  suppressed the fact  of  the  sale  on 3.6.1960 in favour of Mugaji. The Agricultural Lands  Tribu- nal  and Additional Mamlatdar relying on the  enquiry  under Sec. 32G, wherein the right of Mugaji as a tenant was  nega- tived,  upheld the claim of the present respondents  by  his order dated 28.4.1963. When the appellants learnt about  it, they  filed an appeal before the Collector. They also  chal- lenged the earlier order 241 passed against Mugaji under Sec. 32G. The Collector remanded the  matter  on 25.9.1963. The Additional Mamlatdar  by  his order  dated  8.2. 1964 observed that since the  tenant  had purchased  the suit land from the landlords, the  proceeding was  fit to be dropped and it was appropriate to  deal  with the case under Sec. 84C of the Act. Sec. 84C states that  in respect  of  a transfer of any land made after 1955  if  the Mamlatdar  has reason to believe that the transfer  was  in- valid  on  account of any of the provisions of the  Act,  he would  issue notice and hold an enquiry and  decide  whether the transfer is invalid or not. In 1965 a further order  was passed  in the case wherein the Agricultural Lands  Tribunal held the purchase by Mugaji on 3.6.1960 as lawful and upheld the claim of the appellants. The order was upheld in appeal, and the respondent No. 3 filed a revision application before the  Revenue  Tribunal. It was contended on  behalf  of  the present  appellants that after the partition between  Mugaji and  his  sons in 1959 the area held by him came  below  the ceiling  level  and he was, thus. entitled to  purchase  the land  on  3.6. 1960. The Maharashtra Revenue  Tribunal  held that  the land owned by Mugaji did not belong to  the  joint family  and his sons had no share therein, and  the  alleged partition,  therefore, could not be accepted or  recognised. The  result  is that even in 1960, Mugaji was  possessed  of land  beyond  the ceiling area and he was  not  entitled  to purchase  further  land from the respondents 2 to  4.  Thus, having  lost the case, the appellants moved the Bombay  High Court,  and their application was rejected by a short  judg- ment  passed on 2.8. 1972 which is under challenge  in  this appeal by Special Leave.     4. The learned counsel for appellants contended that the High  Court was in error in assuming that the claim  of  the appellants  was based on the right of Mugaji under Sec.  32G

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

of the Act in the capacity of a tenant; and also in  relying on Sec. 10 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The learned counsel appears to be right but for this reason the appellants can not succeed. The  ban on transfers which may affect the ceiling law is more severe under  the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,  1948. Sec.  63  directs  that no sale of land shall  be  valid  in favour  of a person who will after such sale hold  land  ex- ceeding two-thirds of the ceiling area determined under  the Maharashtra  Agricultural lands (Ceiling on  Holdings)  Act, 1961.  The  fact  that on the death of Mugaji  in  1962  his earlier holdings were inherited by his heirs and the respec- tive  holdings,  therefore, came below the ceiling  area  is immaterial,  because  the  disputed land  was  purchased  by Mugaji himself in 1960. It has to be remembered that, as has been held by the Revenue Tribunal, the other 242 lands exclusively belonged to Mugaji and exceeded the  ceil- ing  area. The sale on 3.6.1960 must, therefore, be held  to be  illegal  and inoperative. Consequently,  the  appellants must lose although for slightly different reasons than those given by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. G.N.                                            Appeal  dis- missed. 243