http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: NAVINCHANDRA RAMANLAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KALIDAS BHUDARBHAI AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/02/1979

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1979 AIR 1055            1979 SCR  (3) 329  1979 SCC  (4)  75  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1991 SC1538  (9)

ACT:      Bombay Tenancy  & Agricultural  Lands Act, 1956-Ss. 43C and 88(1)(b)-Scope of.

HEADNOTE:      Sections  43C   and  88   of  the  Bombay  Tenancy  and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 exempted certain lands from the operation of  the Act.  Section 43C provided that nothing in s. 32  to s.  32R (both  inclusive) and s. 43 shall apply to lands in  the  "area  within  the  limits"  of  a  Municipal Corporation  constituted   under   the   Bombay   Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1948. The Gujarat Amendment Act, 1965 substituted  the words  "areas which  on  the  date  of coming into  force of  the Amending Act, 1956 and within the limits of"  for the  words  "areas  within  the  limits  of" occurring in  the original  section. Similarly  s. 88(1) (b) conferred power  on the State Government to exempt land from the operation  of the  provision of  the Act which the State Government may,  from time to 1 time, by notification in the official  Gazette,   specify  as  being  reserved  for  non- agricultural or  industrial development.  The Amendment Act, 36 of  1965 engrafted  a proviso  to cl.  (b) of  s.  88(1), providing that  if after  a notification  in respect  of any area specified  in the notification is issued under the said clause, whether  before or  after the  commencement  of  the Bombay Tenancy  and Agricultural  Lands Act, 1965 the limits of the  area so  specified are  enlarged on  account of  the addition of  any other  area thereto, then, merely by reason of such addition the reservation as made by the notification so issued  shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have applied to the area so added.      The appellant  was the owner of survey No. 165 situated within the  revenue limits  of village Acher near Ahmedabad. For sometime  prior to 1946 the respondent had been a tenant of this  land. By  virtue of  the provisions  of the  Bombay Tenancy Act,  1939 the  respondent became a protected tenant and continued  to be  so under  the Tenancy  Act, 1948.  The Amendment Act of 1956 provided for the transfer of ownership of the  land from the landlord to the tenant by operation of law. The  day was styled as tillers’ day. Under this section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

every tenant  was deemed to have purchased from his landlord free  from   all  encumbrances  subsisting  thereon  on  the tillers’ day  the land  held by  him as tenant. By virtue of this provision the tenant claimed himself to be the owner of the land      On August  9, 1956 the Government issued a notification specifying the  area within  the  limits  of  the  Municipal Corporation of  Ahmedabad as  being reserved  for urban non- agricultural and  industrial development.  This notification was  superseded  by  another  notification  dated  the  14th February, 1957  by which  the Government  specified, amongst others,  the  areas  within  the  limits  of  the  Municipal Corporation of  the city  of Ahmedabad as being reserved for the above  mentioned purpose.  Subsequently  the  Government extended the  limits of  the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation by reason of which survey 330 No. 165 which was formerly outside the Municipal limits, was included within  the area  of the  Municipal Corporation  of Ahmedabad as from May 30, 1959.      In an  inquiry by  the Agricultural  Lands Tribunal for determining the  purchase price  of the  land the appellant- landlord contended  before the  Tribunal  that  in  view  of s.88(1)(b) read  with the  notification of February 14, 1957 the land  (survey No.  165) was exempt from the operation of the 1948  Act and  that the  inquiry should be dropped. This contention was  negatived and  the appeal  by  the  landlord failed. In  revision preferred  by the landlord, the Revenue Tribunal was  of the opinion that not merely the lands which were in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation area at the date of the  notification would be exempted from the operation of the Tenancy  Act but  the exemption would also extend to the lands brought  within the Corporation area from time to time without any fresh notification for reservation.      In the  respondents-tenants’  writ  petition  the  High Court held  that the exemption would apply only to the lands included within  the limits  of the Municipal Corporation as on the  date of the notification and in the absence of fresh reservation by a fresh notification the land included in the Municipal area  on extension  of the limits of the Municipal Corporation subsequent  to the  notification would not enjoy the exemption from the operation of the Tenancy Act.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD: 1 (a) From the language of the amendments made in s. 43C  and s.88(1)(b)  it is clear that both the amendments are retroactive  from August  1, 1956 i.e. from the date the Bombay Tenancy  and Agricultural  Lands (Amendment) Act 1956 came into  force. In  other words  the amended  s.43C and s. 88(1)(b) with  its proviso  will have  to be read as if they have been  introduced in  their amended  form from August 1, 1956. [336 A-B]      (b) The land of survey No. 165 would be governed by the Tenancy Act,  1948. The land which was originally within the revenue limits  of the  village was  included in the area of the Ahmedabad  Municipal Corporation from May 30, 1959. When the amended  s. 43C  and s.  88(1) (b) with its proviso came into force  on August  1, 1956,  the land  not being  in the Municipal Corporation area, would not enjoy the exemption as conferred on  the land within the Municipal Corporation area by the  notification issued  on August 9, 1956 superseded by the subsequent notification of February 14, 1957. [336D-E]      2(a) The  respondent was  a tenant  on the tillers’ day and has  by operation  of law  become the owner and a deemed purchaser. [338 F]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

    (b) The  land (Survey  No.  165)  was  not  within  the Municipal Corporation  area either on February 14, 1957, the date on which the exemption was granted or on August 1, 1956 when Bombay  Act XIII  of 1956  was put into operation or on April 1,  1957 the  tillers’ day  when title  to land  would stand transferred  to the  tenant by  sheer operation of law without anything  more.  Therefore  the  Notification  dated February 14,  1957 would not cover the land which was at the date of  the issue  of  the  Notification  not  included  in Ahmedabad Municipal  Corporation area.  Subsequent extension of the  area of  Municipal Corporation  would not ipso facto qualify the  lands falling  within  the  extended  area  for exemption in  view of  the proviso  to  s.88(1)(b)  and  the opening word  of s.  43C, both  of which clearly recite that the exemp- 331 tion would  apply to  the land  included  in  the  Municipal Corporation area  on August  1, 1956,  the date on which the Bombay  Act  13,  1956  came  into  force  and  not  to  any subsequently  added   area  to   the   area   of   Municipal Corporation. Since the land was brought within the Municipal Corporation area after August 1, 1956 the Notification dated February 14,  1957 would  not cover  such added  or extended area and there would be no exemption under that Notification for the land in the extended area. [338B-E]      (c) The  ratio in  the decisions  in Mohanlal  Chunilal Kothari v.  Tribhovan Haribhai  Tamboli [1963]  2 S.C.R. 707 and Sidram Narasappa Kamble v. Sholapur Borough Municipality [1966] 1  S.C.R. 618  would not  apply because  those  cases turned upon  the construction  of s.88(1)(b)  as it stood at the relevant  time. Presumably in order to combat the effect of some  judgments which  purported to  lay  down  that  the exemption once  granted would  apply to any area that may be included in the Corporation area at a date much later to the date of  the issue  of the Notification, the amendment of s. 88(1)(b) was  made. The  law  having  undergone  substantive amendment bearing on the subject, the earlier decision would be of no assistance. [339 A-D]      Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli [1963] 2 S.C.R. 707  and Sidram Narasappa Kamble v. Sholapur Borough Municipality [1966] 1 S.C.R. 618 held inapplicable.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2200 of 1969.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and Decree dated 26/28th  March, 1969  of the  Gujarat  High  Court  in S.C.A. No. 543 of 1964.      J. N.  Shroff, R.  P. Kapur  and H.  S. Parihar for the Appellant.      J. C. Shah and Vineet Kumar for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J.-This  appeal by  special leave  arises from a judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.  542 of 1964 filed by the present respondent No. 1 against the present appellant contending that the land involved in  the dispute is not exempt from the operation of the  Bombay   Tenancy  and   Agricultural  Lands  Act,  1948 (‘Tenancy Act’ for short).      A brief  recital of the facts will put the point of law raised herein  in proper perspective. Appellant is the owner of Survey  No. 165  measuring 2 acres 21 gunthas situated in Village Acher,  City Taluka,  District Ahmedabad. Respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

is and  has been  the tenant of this land since before 1946. He became  a protected  tenant under  the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 and  his name  appeared in  the Register  to  protected tenants maintained  under that  Act. On the introduction. Of the Tenancy  Act of  1948 the respondent continued to be the protected tenant  under it.  A very  comprehensive amendment was made  the Tenancy  Act of 1948 by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Bombay Act XIII of 1956) (‘1956 332      Act’ for  short). Section  32 as  amended by  1956  Act provided for  transfer of  ownership  of  the  land  from  a landlord to  the tenant of the land by operation of law. The day was  styled as  ‘tiller’s day’  and section  32 provided that subject  to the  other provisions  of the  section  and provisions of the next succeeding section every tenant shall be deemed to have purchased from this landlord free from all encumbrances subsisting  thereon on  the said  day, the land held by  him as tenant. The land involved in this appeal was one to  which the  Tenancy Act  of 1948  as amended  by  the Amending Act of 1956 applied and by the operation of law the tenant-the respondent claimed to be the owner of the land.      Section 88  of the  Tenancy Act  of 1948 as it stood at the relevant  time provided  for exemption  of certain lands from its  provisions, one such exemption being in respect of any area  which the State Government may, by notification in the official  Gazette, specify  as being  reserved for urban non-agricultural or  industrial development. Armed with this power    the     Government    issued    Notification    No. TNC/5156/101955-F dated  9th August,  1956  whereby  amongst others the  Government specified  the area within the limits of the  Municipal Corporations  of the  cities of  Poona and Ahmedabad as  being reserved  for urban non-agricultural and industrial development.  This Notification was superseded by another  Notification   No.  TNC/5156/169426-M   dated  14th February  1957  whereby  the  Government  specified  amongst others  the   areas  within  the  limits  of  the  Municipal Corporations of  the cities  of Poona and Ahmedabad as being reserved for  the above-mentioned  purpose. Neither  of  the Notifications at  the date of issue had any relevance to the land involved  in this  appeal because  it was  not situated within the area of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad.      Subsequently the  Government  extended  the  limits  of Ahmedabad Municipal  Corporation whereby  Acher  Village  in which Survey No. 165 is situated was included in the area of Municipal Corporation  of Ahmedabad  on and  from 30th  May, 1959.      In January  1960  Agricultural  Lands  Tribunal  having jurisdiction over  the area  wherein the  Survey No.  165 is situated, commenced  an enquiry  under s. 32G of the Tenancy Act of  1948 for  determining the purchase price of the land on the footing that under s. 32 respondent/tenant has become the deemed  purchaser of  it. In  the course of this enquiry the appellant  landlord gave an application that the land in respect of  which the  enquiry is being held is now included within the  limits of Municipal Corporation at Ahmedabad and hence in  view of  s. 88(1)  (b) read  with the Notification dated 14th February, 333 1957, it  was exempted  from the operation of ss. 1 to 87 of the Tenancy  Act of  1948 and, therefore, the enquiry should be dropped.  The Agricultural  Lands Tribunal  rejected  the application of  the  appellant-land-landlord  and  proceeded further with the enquiry. The appellant-landlord appealed to the Collector  which mer  with the  same fate.  Appellant  -

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

carried the  matter to  the Gujarat  Revenue  Tribunal.  The Revenue Tribunal  was of  the opinion  that on  a  true  and correct interpretation of s. 88(1)(b) read with the relevant notification, not  merely the  lands which were in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation  area at  the date of the Notification would be  exempted from the operation of the Tenancy Act but the exemption  would also extend to the lands brought within the Corporation area from time to time without any fresh C N Notification for  reservation and  accordingly  allowed  the Revision Application  of the appellant-landlord and directed that the enquiry under s. 32G be dropped. The respondent no. 1-tenant approached  the High Court of Gujarat under Article 227 of  the Constitution.  The  High  Court  held  that  the exemption would  apply only to the lands included within the limits of  the Municipal  Corporation of Ahmedabad as on the date of  Notification  and  in  the  absence  of  the  fresh reservation by  a fresh  notification the  lands included in the Municipal  area  on  extension  of  the  limits  of  the Municipal Corporation  Subsequent to  the Notification would not be  exempted from  the operation  of the Tenancy Act. In reaching this  conclusion one aspect that impressed the High Court was  that while  power to  exempt the  land  from  the operation of  the Tenancy  Act vests  in the Government, the area of  the Municipal  Corporation may  be extended  by the Corporation authority  and if  to  such  extended  area  the exemption were  to apply,  the power  of granting  exemption would be  enjoyed by Municipal Corporation which was not the legislative delegate  and on  which the  power to exempt was not concerned  and simultaneously, the legislative delegate, namely,  State  Government  would  completely  abdicate  its function. This  aspect is  specifically referred  to  as  it proceeds  on   an  erroneous   assumption   that   Municipal Corporation can  extend its own area. A reference to section 3 of  the Bombay  Provincial Municipal Corporation Act would show that  unless the  State Government  in exercise  of the power conferred  upon it,  extends the limits, the Municipal Corporation  on   its  own  cannot  extend  the  limit.  The assumption being  incorrect, it  cannot be  called in aid of the conclusion reached by the High Court. Mr. J. C. Shah for the respondent,  however, frankly  stated that  he could not support the  aforementioned reason  of the  High Court  and, therefore, the  Court should ignore it. We would say no more about it. In accordance with its opinion that 334 the land  falling in  the subsequently  extended limit would not enjoy  the benefit  of exemption, the High Court quashed the order  of the  Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and directed the authority under  the Tenancy Act to proceed further with the enquiry under s. 32G.      Mr. I.  N. Shroff, learned counsel who appeared for the appellant urged  that the High Court was in error in putting a narrow  construction on  s. 88(1) (b) because the power to exempt an  area situate  within  the  Municipal  Corporation limit was  to be  exercised for  urban  non-agricultural  or industrial  development   and  that   once  such   power  is exercised, it  should cover  the entire  area situate within the limits  of Municipal  Corporation at  any given point of time, and  this  construction  adopted  by  Gujarat  Revenue Tribunal deserves acceptance by this Court as it effectuates the purpose  for which  power is  conferred. It  was further contended that  once a  Notification exempting the land from the operation  of the  Tenancy Act  is issued under s. 88(1) (b), the  exemption would  become operative  retrospectively and no vested right could thereafter be claimed.      The  contention   raised  by   Mr.  Shroff  would  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

necessitated  examination  of  the  scheme  of  the  various provisions of  the Tenancy  Act as has been done by the High Court but  in  our  opinion  the  High  Court  unnecessarily undertook this  exercise wholly  overlooking and  by passing two  important   amendments  introduced   in  the   relevant provisions of  the Tenancy  Act of 1948, viz., 43C and 88(1) both of  which were  in force  at the time when the petition was heard and upon proper construction both amendments being retroactive in  their operation from the commencement of the Amendment Act  of 1956  which came into force on 1st August, 1956 would  have clinched  the issue.  Therefore, it  is not necessary to  examine the  contention from  the  angle  from which the  High Court  has done  but the  contention of  Mr. Shroff can  be disposed  of by  a mere  reference to the two relevant provisions.      The two sections relevant for considering the exemption from the  operation of  the Tenancy  Act of 1948 are 43C and 88. Section  43C as it stood before its amendment by Gujarat Act 36 of 1965 read as under:           "43C. Nothing  in ss.  32 to  32R, both inclusive,      and 43  shall apply  to lands  in the  areas within the      limits of-      (a) xxx        xxx            xxx            xxx      (b)  Municipal  Corporation  constituted  under  Bombay      Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1948".      Section 88(1)(b)  as it stood prior to the introduction of a proviso by Gujarat Act 36 of 1965 reads as under: 335           "88.(1) Save  as otherwise  expressly provided  in      sub-s. (2)  nothing in the foregoing provisions of this      Act shall apply-      (a).           x         x         x         x      (b) to  any area  which the  State Government  may from      time to  time by  Notification in  the official gazette      specify  as  being  reserved  for  non-agricultural  or      industrial development".      The Tenancy  Act of  1948 was  amended  by  the  Bombay Tenancy and  Agricultural  Lands  (Gujarat  Amendment)  Act, 1965, (Gujarat  Act 36  of 1965). Section 7 of the Amendment Act of 1965 reads as under:-           "7. Amendment  of section  43C of  Bom.  LXVII  of      1948-In section  43C of the principal Act, for the word      ‘areas within the limits of’, the words ‘areas which on      the date  of the coming into force of the Amending Act,      1955 are within the limits of’ shall be substituted and      shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect on      and from 1st August, 1956".      Section 18 of the Amending Act reads as under:           "18. Amendment  of section  88 of  Bom.  LXVII  of      1948-In section 88 of the principal Act,-      (1) in sub-section (1),      (i)  x    x    x    x    x    x    x    x    x      (ii) to  clause (b)  the following  provision shall  be           added, namely:-      Provided that if after a notification in respect of any area specified  in the  notification is  issued  under  this clause, whether  before or  after the  commencement  of  the Bombay Tenancy  and Agricultural  Lands (Gujarat  Amendment) Act, 1965  (Guj. 36  of 1965),  the limits  of the  area  so specified are  enlarged on  account of  the addition  of any other area  thereto, then merely by reason of such addition, the reservation  as made by the notification so issued shall not apply  and shall  be deemed never to have applied to the area so  added, notwithstanding  anything  to  the  contrary contained in  any judgment,  decree, or  order of any court,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

tribunal or any other authority". 336      Both  these   amendments  to  the  Principal  Act  were introduced by  Gujarat Act  36 of 1965 which came into force from 29th  December, 1965.  However, looking to the language of the  amendments made  in s. 43C and s. 88(1)(b), both the amendments are  retroactive from  1st August 1956, i.e. from the date  Bombay Act  13 of  1956 came  into force. In other words, amended  s.43C and  s.88(1)(b) with  its proviso will have to be read as if they were introduced in that very form from 1st August, 1956.      Having noticed the amendments let us look to its impact on the question of application of the Tenancy Act of 1948 to the lands  included in  the Municipal  Corporation  area  of Ahmedabad after 1st August, 1956.      Indisputably, Survey No. 165, the land involved in this appeal, being  situated within  the revenue  limits of Acher Village, was  included in  the area  of Ahmedabad  Municipal Corporation from  30th May,  1959. Therefore,  on 1st August 1956 when  the amended  sections 43C  and 88(1)(b)  with its proviso as  amended by  Act 36  of 1965 came into force, the land being  not in  Municipal Corporation  area,  would  not enjoy the  exemption as  conferred on  the land  within  the Municipal Corporation area by the Notification issued on 9th August, 1956,  superseded  by  the  subsequent  Notification dated 14th February, 1957 in exercise of the power conferred by s. 88(1) (b). Accordingly, this land Survey No. 165 would be governed  by the Tenancy Act of 1948. The consequences of the application  of the  Tenancy Act  of 1948 to land Survey No. 165 may now be examined.      By Bombay  Act 13  of 1956 a revolutionary amendment of far reaching consequence was made in the Tenancy Act of 1948 and the  amended Act  came into  force with  effect from 1st August, 1956.      The most important provision of the Amending Act was s. 32 as  amended  by  the  Amending  Act  which  provided  for transfer of  the ownership  of land by operation of law from the landlord  to the  tenant. The  title to  the land  which vested in the landlord on 1st April, 1957, the tiller’s day, passed to the tenant by operation of law. What is the effect of this  transfer of title was examined by this Court in Sri Ram Ram  Narain Medhi  v. State of Bombay.(1) The Court held as under.           "The title  of the  landlord to  the  land  passes      immediately to the tenant on the tiller’s day and there      is a  completed purchase or sale thereof as between the      landlord and the tenant. The tenant is no doubt given a      locus penitentiae and an option of declaring whether he      is or is not willing to 337      purchase the  land held by him as a tenant. If he fails      to appear  or makes  a statement that he is not willing      to purchase the land, the Tribunal shall by an order in      writing declare  that such  tenant is  not  willing  to      purchase the land and that the purchase is ineffective.      It is  only by  such a declaration by the Tribunal that      the  purchase   becomes   ineffective.   If   no   such      declaration is  made by the Tribunal the purchase would      stand as  statutorily effected  on the tiller’s day and      will continue  to be  operative, the only obligation on      the tenant  then being the payment of price in the mode      determined by  the  Tribunal.  If  the  tenant  commits      default in  the payment of such price either in lump or      by instalments  as determined  by the  Tribunal, s. 32M      declares the  purchase to  be ineffective  but in  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

    event the  land shall  then be  at the  disposal of the      Collector to  be disposed  of  by  him  in  the  manner      provided therein.  Here also  the purchase continues to      be effective  as  from  the  tiller’s  day  until  such      default is  committed and  there is  no question  of  a      conditional purchase  or sale  taking place between the      landlord and  tenant. The  title to  the land which was      vested originally  in the landlord passes to the tenant      on  the   tiller’s  day   or  the   alternative  period      prescribed in  that behalf.  This title  is  defeasible      only in  the event  of the  tenant failing to appear or      making a  statement that  he is not willing to purchase      the land  or committing default in payment of the price      thereof as  determined by the Tribunal. The tenant gets      a vested interest in the land defeasible only in either      of those cases and it cannot therefore be said that the      title of  land lord  to the  land is  suspended for any      period definite or indefinite".      If the  effect of  the land  being governed by s. 32 on tiller’s day is to transfer the title of the landlord to the tenant by  operation of law, defeasible only in the event of tenant declining  to purchase the land or committing default in payment  of price as determined by the Tribunal, the next question is:  if the land is subsequently brought within the Municipal Corporation  area which  area enjoys the exemption under s. 88(1)(b), would the vested title be vested:      This question  can be  answered shortly by referring to the amended  s. 43C  and s. 88(1) (b) with its proviso. both of which  clearly assert that the exemption granted under s. 88(1)(b) by a Notification 338 issued by  the Government would enure for the benefit of the land which  was within the Municipal Corporation area on 1st August, 1956 and in no case the additional area which may be included within  the Municipal  Corporation area  after  1st August, 1956  would  enjoy  the  exemption  granted  by  the Notification  unless   a  fresh   Notification  is   issued. Admittedly, since  14th February, 1957 no fresh Notification is issued.  The land  bearing Survey  No. 165 was not within the Municipal  Corporation area  either  on  14th  February, 1957, the  day on  which exemption  was granted,  or on  1st August, 1956  when Bombay  Act VIII  of 1956  was  put  into operation or  on 1st  April, 1957,  the tiller’s  day,  when title to land would stand transferred to the tenant by sheer operation of  law  without  anything  more.  Therefore,  the Notification dated  14th February,  1957 would not cover the land which  was at the date of the issue of the Notification not  included   in  Ahmadabad  Municipal  Corporation  area. Subsequent extension  of the  area of  Municipal Corporation would not  enjoy the  benefit of  exemption in  view of  the proviso to s. 88(1) (b) and the opening words of s. 43C both of which  clearly recite  that the  exemption would apply to the land  included in  the Municipal Corporation area on 1st August, 1956,  the day  on which  Bombay Act 13 of 1956 came into force,  and not  to any  subsequently added area to the area of  Municipal Corporation.  Land bearing Survey No. 165 was brought  within the Municipal Corporation area after 1st August, 1956  and, therefore,  the Notification  dated  14th February, 1957  would not  cover such added or extended area and there  would be no exemption under that Notification for the land in the extended area.      If the  land bearing  Survey No. 165 does not enjoy the benefit of  exemption  under  s.  88(1)  (b)  and  it  being agricultural land  in respect  of which  the respondent  was tenant on the tiller’s day, the respondent has, by operation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

of law,  become the  owner and  is a  deemed purchaser.  The Agricultural Lands  Tribunal would  have to proceed with the enquiry to determine the price as required by s. 32G.      Mr. Shroff,  however, contended  that the  decisions of this  Court   in  Mohanlal  Chunilal  Kothari  v.  Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli,(1)  and Stdram Narsappa Kamble v. Sholapur Borough  Municipality,(2)   would  clearly   indicate   that whenever a  Notification under s. 88(1) (b) is issued by the appropriate Government  granting exemption  to any area from the operation  of the Tenancy Act for the purposes mentioned in   the    sub-section,   such    exemption   will    apply retrospectively. 339 and no  vested right  under the Tenancy Act 1948 or even one under the  Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, could be claimed by any one. It  is not necessary to examine this contention because subsequent to  the later  decision in Sidram Narsappa Kamble (supra) the  Tenancy Act  of 1948 was amended by Gujarat Act 36 of  1965 making  it abundantly clear that if there is any Notification exempting  any area  from the  operation of the Tenancy Act  issued by  the appropriate  Government under s. 88(1) (b), the exemption would enure for the benefit of that area included in the Municipal Corporation as on 1st August, 1956 and  in  the  absence  of  a  fresh  Notification  such exemption would  not be  available to  the extended  or area added  to   the  area  of  Municipal  Corporation  and  this amendment is  made effective  notwithstanding any  judgment, order or  decision of the Court or Tribunal to the contrary. Presumably, in  order to combat the effect of some judgments which purported  to lay down that the exemption once granted would apply  to  any  area  that  may  be  included  in  the Corporation area  at a  date much later to the date of issue of the  Notification, the  amendment was  made. Accordingly, law having  undergone a substantive amendment bearing on the subject, the  ratio in  the decision  of  Mohonlal  Chunilal Kothari and Sidram Narsappa Kamble (supra) which turned upon the construction of s. 88(1) (b) as it stood at the relevant time, would not be of any assistance.      Therefore, for  the reasons  herein stated, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. N.K.A.                                     Appeal dismissed. 340