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

PETITIONER: PAMCHANDRA HASHA DALVI (DECEASED) THROUTH LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: D.PATWARDHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/10/1998

BENCH: G.T.NANAVATI, S.P.KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT Nanavati.J. This appeal is  filed  by  the  tenant  against  the judgment  and or der dated 3.8.1990 passed by the High Court of Bombaly in Writ Petition No. 95 of 1980. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal, The deputy District Collector  in  appeal  and  the Revenue Tribunal in revision have held that the tenant had made a statement on  13.1.1965 stating  that  he  was not willing to purchase the land and, therefore, the purchase  under  Section  32  of  the  Bombay Tenancy  and  Agricultural Lands Act had become ineffective. After the purchase was declared ineffective, the tenant made an application declaring that he wants to purchase the land. That application was dismissed  by  the  Agricultural  Lands Tribunal as not maintainable.  Another application was moved by the  tenant  on  12.1.1967.    That was also dismissed on 13.3.1967 for the same reason.   Again  an  application  was made  by  the  tenant  on 15.2.1968 stating therein that the statement dated 13.1.1965 was not voluntarily  made  by  him and  in any case it was not conclusive as it was not made on oath.  He also alleged that no  notice  regarding  statutory purchase of  the land was received by him.  This application was rejected by  the  Agricultural  Lands  Tribunal  on  the ground  that  at  that stage evidence could be led only with respect to the proceeding under Section 32-P of the Act  and no evidence could be led to question the order passed in the 32-G proceedings.  The Tribunal than held that the statutory sale  in  favour of the tenant having become ineffective the landlord was entitled to be put in possession of the land. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld  in  appeal and also in the revision application. As  all the authorities have, after appreciating the material on record, come to the conclusion that the sale had become  ineffective  and  the  landlord  was   entitled   to possession  of  the  land under Section 32-P of the Act, the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition.   This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.