http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SAHADU BALA BOTRE (DEAD) BY LRS.AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NAMDEO BAPUJI KERALA (DEAD) BY LRS.AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1658            JT 1996 (3)    72  1996 SCALE  (2)579

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The  only  question  in  this  appeal  is  whether  the interpretation put up by the High Court on second proviso to Section 84A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 is  correct? The  appeal arises from the judgment dated June  17/18,   1970  of   Bombay  High  Court  made  in  SCA No.1133/64. The  facts are not in dispute. The appellant had purchased along  with another  undivided interest  in Survey No.59 of  a total  extent of  106 acres situated in Sadavadi Village, Taluka  Mawal in Pune District in which it is found as a  fact that  the respondent Namdeo Bapuji Kerala was the tenant. After unsuccessful attempt before Revenue Forums the appellant  filed   an  application  under  Section  84A  for validation of  the sale deed which the appellant had. Though the  Revenue   Forums  found  that  the  appellant  and  the respondent Sahadu  Bal a Botre and Namdeo Bapuji Kerala were tenants in  common, in  Appeal No  .21/1957 by  order  dated February 28, 1958 it was held that Sahadu Bala Botre was not the  tenant.  That  order  had  become  final.  Thereby  the respondent became  the sole tenant of the land. The question then is:  whether validation  of the  sale could be granted? Section 84A reads thus:      "84A. (1) A transfer of any land in      contravention of  section 63  or 64      as it stood before the commencement      of the  Amending  Act,  1955,  made      after the  28th  day  of  December,      1948 (when  the Bombay  Tenancy and      Agricultural Lands  Act, 1948, came      into force) and before the 15th day      of  June,   1955,  shall   not   be      declared to  be invalid  merely  on      the ground  that such  transfer was      made in  contravention of  the said      sections if  the transferee pays to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    the  State   Government  a  penalty      equal  to   one  per  cent  of  the      consideration or Rs.100/- whichever      is less:           Provided   that,    if    such      transfer is made by the landlord in      favour  of  the  tenant  in  actual      possession, the penalty leviable in      respect thereof shall be one rupee:           Provided further  that if  any      such  transfer   is  made   by  the      landlord in  favour of  any  person      other than  the  tenant  in  actual      possession, and  such  transfer  is      made  either   after  the  unlawful      eviction of such tenant, or results      in the  eviction of  the tenant  in      actual   possession,    then   such      transfer shall  not be deemed to be      validated (unless  such tenant  has      failed to  apply for the possession      of the  land under  sub-section (1)      of section 29 within two years from      the date  of his  eviction from the      land),      (2) On payment of such penalty, the      Mamlatdar shall issue a certificate      to   the   transferee   that   such      transfer is not invalid.      (3) Where  the transferee  fails to      pay the  penalty referred to in sub      section (1)  within such  period as      may  be  prescribed,  the  transfer      shall be  declared by the Mamlatdar      to be invalid and thereupon the (5)      of Section 84C shall apply."      We are  concerned with the second proviso in this case. The main  part of sub-section (1) postulates that a transfer of any land in contravention of Section 63 or 64 as it stood before the  commencement of  1955 Amending  Act, made  after December 28,  1948 and  before June 15, 1955, i.e., when the Amending Act  was brought  into force, shall not be declared to be  invalid merely  on the  ground that such transfer was made in  contravention of Section 63 or 64 provided that the transferee pays  to the  Government a penalty equal to 1% of the consideration or Rs.100/- whichever is less. Nonetheless the  second   proviso  seeks  to  protect  interest  of  the cultivating tenant. It says that if such transfer is made by the landlord  in favour  of any person other than the tenant in actual  possession, and     such transfer  is made either after the  unlawful eviction  of such  tenant, or results in the eviction  of the  tenant in actual possession, then such transfer shall  not be  deemed to  be validated  unless such tenant has  failed to apply for possession of the land under sub-section (1) of Section 29 within two years from the date of his  eviction from  such land.  The later  clause dealing with Section  29(1) does not apply to the facts of the case. If validation  of the  sale results  in dispossession of the respondent tenant,  it should should not be made. Therefore, in view  of the  specific  embargo  created  by  the  second proviso which is mandatory and beneficial to the tenant, the authorities below  were well justified in refusing the grant of validation of the sale made in favour of the appellant.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   dismissed  but  in  the circumstances without costs.

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