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

PETITIONER: PANDURANG DNYANOBA LAD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DADA RAMA METHE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/02/1976

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. GUPTA, A.C.

CITATION:  1976 AIR 1910            1976 SCR  (3) 493  1976 SCC  (2) 236

ACT:      Bombay Tenancy  & Agricultural  Lands Act  1948-Section 32G(6)-32(o)  -Bombay   Merged   Territories   Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955- Secs. 6, 7, 8 9. 28-Whether on abolition  of Inams  the  relationship  of  landlord  and tenant comes  to an  end-Whether tenant’s  right to purchase land under tenancy act affected by abolition act.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  owned a  land which  was held for the of miscellaneous inferior  services and  was  classified  as  a Huzur Sanadi  Inam land.  The respondents were in possession of the  land as  tenarlts and  were declared  as  purchasers under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Tenancy Act  provides by section 32 that on 1st April, 1957, every tenant  subject to  certain conditions shall be deemed to have  purchased from his landlord the land held by him as a tenant.  The Bombay  Legislature passed  the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act of 1955. The appellant  contended that  in view  of the provisions of the Abolition  Act, the  relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end between the appellant and the respondents and that, therefore,  respondents have  no right to purchase the land. The  contention of  the appellant was negatived by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal which was confirmed in appeal by the  special   Deputy  Collector  and  in  revision  by  the Maharashtra Revenue  Tribunal. A  writ petition filed by the appellant  in   the  High  Court  of  Bombay  was  summarily dismissed      Dismissing the appeal by Special Leave, ^      HELD: 1.  By  section  4  of  the  Abolition  Act,  all alienations in  the Merged  Territories were  abolished with effect from  the appointed  date. Sections  6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Abolition  Act provide for the grant of occupancy rights hl  respect  of  the  erstwhile  Inam  Iands.  There  is  no provision in that Act by virtue of which the relationship of landlord and  tenant between  the ex-lnamdar  and his tenant would  stand  extinguished.  On  the  contrary,  section  28 Provides that  nothing contained in the Act shall in any way be deemed to effect the application of any of the provisions

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

of the  Tenancy Act  to any  alienated land  or  the  mutual rights and obligations of a landlord and his tenants save in so far  as the  said provisions  are in any way inconsistent with the  express provisions  of the  Act. The provisions of the Tenancy  Act contained  in section  32  are  in  no  way inconsistent with  any of  the  express  provisions  of  the Abolition Act. [495-A, B-C, & D]      2. Section  32(O) of  the Tenancy  Act applies  only to tenancies created after the tiller’s day. [495E]      3. The  object of the Abolition Act was the elimination of Inamdars  as intermediaries  and not  the eviction of the tillers of the soil. [495G]      4. Section 32G(6) of the Tenancy Act shows that nothing contained in the Abolition Act can affect the tenant’s right of Purchase  under section 32, even if any land is regranted to the  holder under  the Abolition Act on condition that it was not transferable. [496A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 475 of l973.      (Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and order dated the  26-4-1972 of  the Bombay  High Court  in  Special Civil Application No. 165 of 1972) 17-L522 SCI/76 494      S.B. Wad and M. S. Ganesh, for the appellant.      P.H. Parekh, for the respondent.      The judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD, J.  The appellant  owned  a  land,  Survey No.72, at  Shiroli in the district of Kolhapur. The land was held by  the appellant  for the performance of miscellaneous inferior services  and was classified as a Huzur Sanadi Inam land. Respondents  have been  in possession  of a portion of the land  as tenants  and were  declared as purchasers under the Bombay  Tenancy and  Agricultural Lands  Act,  LXVII  of 1948, (hereinafter  called the Tenancy Act). Consequent upon the   declaration,    the   Agricultural   Lands   Tribunal, Hatkanagale, fixed  the price  of the land under section 32G of the Tenancy Act. That decision was confirmed in appeal by the Special  Deputy Collector,  Kolhapur, and in revision by the Maharashtra  Revenue Tribunal.  The  appellant  filed  a petition in  the Bombay  High Court under article 227 of the Constitution  to  challenge  the  decision  of  the  Revenue Tribunal bu  that petition  was  dismissed  summarily  by  a learned Single  judge.  This  appeal  by  special  leave  is directed against the order of the High Court.      The Tenancy Act provides by section 32 that on April 1, 1957, called  the "tillers day", every tenant shall, subject to certain  conditions, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord the  land held  by him  as a  tenant.  Section  32G requires the  Agricultural   land Tribunal  to determine the purchase price  of the  land in  accordance with a statutory formula. The  dispute  before  us  is  not  as  regards  the arithmetic of  the price fixation but as regards whether the respondents are  qualified ar all to purchase the land under section 32  of the Tenancy Act. The right of a tenant to opt for a  compulsory purchase  of the agricultural land held by him is no longer open to constitutional doubt or difficulty. But, the  respondents  ’  right  to  purchase  the  land  is questioned by  the appellant  on the ground that they ceased to be tenants and have therefore no right of purchase.      This plea  is founded  on the  provisions of the Bombay

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

Merged Territories  Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, XVII of  1955 (hereinafter  called the Alienations Abolition Act). It is argued that with the abolition of Inams effected under that  Act, the old relationship of landlord and tenant between the  appellant and  respondents came to an end, that with the re-grant of occupancy rights to the appellant a new relationship of  landlord and  tenant came  intro  existence between them  and since  the respondents  did  not  exercise their  right  to  repurchase  the  land  within  the  period prescribed by  section 32-O  of the  Tenancy Act,  they have forfeited  that  right.  According  to  the  appellant,  the provisions of  the Tenancy Act and the Alienations Abolition Act  are   in  a   material  respect  inconsistent  and  the inconsistency has to be resolved by giving precedence to the latter Act.      The  merit   of  these  contentions  depends  upon  the validity of the basic that with the abolition of Inams which the   Alienations   Abolition   act   brought   about,   the relationship of landlord and tenant 495 between the appellant and the respondents came to an end. We see no warrant for this premise.      By section  4 of  the Alienations  Abolition  Act,  all alienations in  the merged  territories were  abolished with effect from the appointed date. As a result of the abolition of Inams  effected by  section 4, all alienated lands became liable under  section S  to the  payment of  land revenue in accordance with  the provisions  of the  Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879.  Sections 6,  7, 8  and  9  of  the  Alienations Abolition Act  provide for  the grant of occupancy rights in respect of  the erstwhile  Inam lands. There is no provision in that  Act by virtue of which the relationship of landlord and tenant between the ex Inamdar and his tenant would stand extinguished. On  the contrary,  section  28  provides  that nothing contained  in the  Act shall in any way be deemed to affect the  application of  any of  the  provisions  of  the Tenancy Act to any alienated land or, "the mutual rights and obligations of  a landlord and his tenants save in so far as the said provisions are not in any way inconsistent with the express provisions  of this  Act". None of the provisions of the Tenancy  Act, particularly  the provision  contained  in section 32  of the  Tenancy Act  under which  tenants became entitled to purchase the lands held by them in that capacity on the  tillers’ day, is in any way inconsistent with any of the express  provisions of  the Alienations  Abolition  Act. Section 32  of the  Tenancy Act  must therefore  govern  the rights of the ex-Inamdar and his tenants notwithstanding the abolition of  the Inams  brought about  by  the  Alienations Abolition Act.  Since the  respondents did  not cease  to be tenants  of   the  appellant  on  the  introduction  of  the Alienations Abolition Act, they are entitled to purchase the land under section 32. Consequently, it was competent to the Agricultural Lands  Tribunal to  commence the price fixation proceedings under section 32G of the Tenancy Act.      Section  32-o  of  the  Tenancy  Act  applies  only  to tenancies created  after the  tillers’ day. It provides that in  respect   of  such   tenancies,  a  tenant  desirous  of exercising the  right of purchase must give an intimation to the landlord  and the  Tribunal within  one  year  from  the commencement  of   his  tenancy.  As  observed  by  us,  the relationship of  landlord and  tenant between  the appellant and respondents  did not  come to an end on the introduction of the  Alienations Abolition  Act nor  indeed is  there any legal justification  for the  theory that  on the  cesser of that relationship  a new relationship of landlord and tenant

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

came into existence between the parties so as to attract the application of  section 32G.  The object  of the Alienations Abolition  Act   was  "to   abolish  ....   alienations   of miscellaneous  character   2  prevailing   in   the   merged territories", that  is to  say, to  abolish the  Inam grants prevailing in those territories. The elimination of Inamdars as intermediaries,  not the  eviction of  the tillers of the soil, was  the object  of that  Act. By  section 4, what was abolished was all alienations, all rights legally subsisting in respect  of a1ienations  and all  other incidents of such alienations. A  tenancy created by an Inamdar is not a right in  respect  of  the  alienation  nor  an  incident  of  the alienation. In  simple words,  a11 rights  of  the  Inamdars stood determined on the 496 introduction of the Alienations Abolition Act; the rights of tenants continued  to exist  and were expressly protected by section 28 of the Alienations Abolition Act.      The  provision  contained  in  section  32G(6)  of  the Tenancy Act  shows that nothing contained in the Alienations Abolition Act  can affect  the tenant’s  right  of  purchase under section  32. Section  32G(6) provides that if any land is re-granted  to the  holder under the provisions of any of the Land  Tenures Abolition Acts referred to in Schedule IlI of  the   Tenancy  Act   on  condition   that  it   was  not transferable, such  condition shall  not be deemed to affect the right  of any  person holding  the land on lease created before the  re-grant and  such person shall, as a tenant, be deemed to  have purchased  the land  under section 32G as if the condition  that it  was not  transferable  was  not  the condition of  re-grant. The  Alienations  Abolition  Act  is included in  Schedule III of the Tenancy Act as item No. 21. Thus, even  if the  land, after  the abolition  of the  Inam effected under the Alienations Abolition Act, was re-granted to the  appellant on condition that it was not transferable, such a  condition cannot  affect the right of the respondent to purchase the land under section 32 and 32G of the Tenancy Act. In  other words,  the statutory purchase of a land by a tenant under  the provisions  of the Tenancy Act is excepted from the  restraint of  nontransferability. It is undisputed that the  respondents were  holding the  land  on.  a  lease created before  the occupancy  rights were re-granted to the appellant on the abolition of the Inam.      The  questions  raised  before  us  on  behalf  of  the appellant merited  careful consideration  and we  would have been happy  to have  the benefit of a considered judgment by the High  Court. But  the Revenue  Tribunal was right in its decision and  so the  summary dismissal of the Writ Petition by the High Court has not caused any failure of justice.      In the  result, the  appeal fails  and is dismissed. We are thankfuI  to Shri Parekh for assisting us in the case as amicus. P.H.P.                                     Appeal dismissed. 497