REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11774 OF 2018

VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D)

BY LRS. & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (DEAD)

THRU LRS. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11775-11798 OF 2018

SHRI ARJUN HARI

KAMBLE AND ETC. ETC. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (DEAD)

THRU LRS. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.

These appeals have been filed against the common

judgment dated 01.08.2014 of High Court of Bombay

dismissing a bunch of writ petitions including those

filed by the present appellants.

1

2.It shall be sufficient to notice the facts in

Civil Appeal filed by Vasant Ganpat Padave for

deciding these appeals.

3.One Balwant Sawant was landlord of Survey

No.92/2, corresponding to new Survey No. 31 Hissa

No.2/10, admeasuring about 0.01.3 H.R. at Village

Padavewadi, Taluka & District Ratnagiri. Balwant

Sawant died on 10.05.1950 leaving behind Smt.

Indirabai Balwant Sawant, his widow as his legal heir

and representative. Smt. Indirabai Balwant Sawant,

widow became the owner of the said property. Her

name was mutated in the Revenue Records. Bombay

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was amended

by Act 15 of 1957. Section 32 as amended provided

that on 01.04.1957 (Tillers Day), every tenant shall

be deemed to have purchased from the landlord free

from all encumbrances the land held by him as a

tenant. The predecessor of the appellants were

tenants prior to 1956-1957, i.e. prior to 01.04.1957.

The proceedings for declaring the appellants as

purchaser under Section 32G were initiated during the

lifetime of the landlady, Smt. Indirabai Balwant

2

Sawant but the mutation entry No. 1341 recorded that

since landlady Indirabai Balwant Sawant is a widow,

the proceedings as contemplated under Section 32G are

suspended. On 12.05.1975, Smt. Indirabai Balwant

Sawant executed last Will and Testament in favour of

Anant Mahadev Sawant, respondent No.1. Smt. Indirabai

Balwant Sawant died on 07.05.1999. The name of

respondent No.1 was mutated in the Revenue Records on

29.02.2000, with regard to which no notice was issued

to the appellants, hence they were not aware of

either the death of Indirabai or mutation in favour

of respondent No. 1.

4.In the year 2008, when the appellants came to

know that landlady has died and in her place name of

respondent No.1 has been mutated, they filed an

application on 05.09.2008 before respondent No.2 -

Additional Tahsiladar & A.L.T. Ratnagiri, Maharashtra

for fixing the purchase price under Section 32G of

the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1948 (hereinafter referred to as “1948 Act”). The

respondent No.1 filed reply and opposed the said

application. The respondent No.2 allowed the

3

application of appellants by order dated 09.09.2011.

The respondent No.2 held that predecessors of

appellants were tenants prior to 1956-1957.

Proceedings under Section 32G for declaring the

appellants as purchasers were initiated during the

lifetime of the landlady and the same were suspended

on 08.01.1964 during the lifetime of the landlady

being a widow. Respondent No.2 fixed the purchase

price and directed the appellants to deposit the same

to enable issue of Sale Certificate in favour of the

appellants. Aggrieved against the order dated

09.09.2011, the respondent No.1 filed an appeal under

Section 74 of the 1948 Act before the respondent

No.3- Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.

The respondent No.3 allowed the appeal vide its order

dated 08.01.2013. The respondent No.3 held that the

appellant ought to have issued notice under Section

32F within the time as prescribed and no notice

having been issued within the time as prescribed, the

appellants have lost right of purchase.

5.The appellants aggrieved by the order of the Sub-

Divisional Officer filed a Revision Application

4

before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. There were

other revisions filed by several other tenants who

were aggrieved by the order of Sub-Divisional

Officer. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by a

common order dated 20.04.2013 dismissed the revisions

and confirmed the order of Sub-Divisional Officer.

The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that applicants

were under legal obligation to give intimation

expressing their desire to purchase within time

stipulated under Section 32F, which having not been

given, no right of purchase is available to

applicants. Aggrieved against the judgment of

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, writ petitions were

filed by the appellants and several other similarly

situated tenants. All the writ petitions were

dismissed by common judgment dated 01.08.2014 of the

High Court, against which judgment, these appeals

have been filed.

6.Learned counsel for the appellants challenging

the impugned order submits that by operation of law,

i.e. by Section 32 as amended by Act 15 of 1957, all

tenants were deemed to have purchased from their

5

landlord the land held by them but in case of

appellants, the said purchase was suspended since on

the Tillers Day, the landlady was a widow, who had

protection under Section 31(3) and with regard to

whom the purchase was suspended. It is submitted

that the landlady or her legal heirs having never

given any notice for termination of tenancy under

Section 31(3), after expiry of period as mentioned in

Section 31(3), appellants shall be treated to have

purchased the land in his tenancy. It is submitted

that under Section 32F, notice of intention

to purchase the land under tenancy was given by the

appellants as soon as they came to know about the

death of the landlady. No notice having been

given by the legal heirs of the landlady informing

about her death or any intention to terminate the

tenancy, the appellants could exercise their right of

purchase only when they came to know about the death,

i.e. in the year 2008. It is submitted that for

enabling the appellants, who were tenants, to

exercise the right of purchase, the notice by legal

heirs was necessary. When no notice was issued by

6

the respondent No.1., i.e., legal heir of the

landlady that he has succeeded to tenancy, no cause

of action arose for appellants to exercise right of

purchase, thus the right of purchase shall not be

defeated due to the above reason. It is submitted

that right of deemed purchase on the Tillers Day is

only suspended in the case of landlady, who was widow

and after her death, the right of purchase shall be

revived in favour of the tenant and Courts below

committed error in rejecting the application filed by

the appellants for purchase. Learned counsel for the

appellants has further submitted that appellant being

permanent tenants, provisions of Section 31 were not

attracted, hence, there was no period of limitation

for purchase by the tenants.

7.Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the

submissions of the appellants contends that the

appellants having not exercised their right of

purchase within the time stipulated under Section

32F, the right given under Section 32F, i.e., right

of purchase of the tenant is lost and no error has

7

been committed by the Courts below in rejecting the

application filed by the appellants for purchase of

the land. He submits that death of the landlady

having occurred on 07.05.1999, appellants cannot be

permitted to move an application for purchase in 2008

on the ground that they were not aware of the death

of the landlady. The period for exercising the right

of purchase is statutorily fixed, which cannot be

extended by anyone. Learned counsel for the

respondents submits that the issues raised by the

appellant are fully covered by the judgment of this

Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. Vs.

Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar and Others, (1999) 4 SCC

443.

8.Learned counsel for the parties in support of

their respective submissions has relied on various

judgments of this Court, which shall be referred to

while considering the submissions in detail.

9.Before we proceed to consider the respective

submissions of the parties, it is necessary to look

into the Statutory Scheme of the 1948 Act. The 1948

Act was enacted to amend the law relating to tenancy

8

of agricultural lands and to make certain other

provisions relating to those lands. Chapter III of

the Act deals with “Special Rights and Privileges of

Tenants and Provisions for Distribution of Land for

Personal Cultivation”. Section 31 of the Act

provides for Landlord’s right to terminate tenancy

for personal cultivation and non-agricultural

purpose. Section 31 of the Act is as follows:-

31. Landlord’s right to terminate tenancy

for personal cultivation and non-

agricultural purpose. (1) Notwithstanding

anything contained in sections 14 and 30

but subject to sections 31A to 31D (both

inclusive), a [landlord (not being a

landlord within the meaning of Chapter III-

AA) may], after giving notice and making an

application for possession as provided in

sub-section (2), terminate the tenancy of

any land (except a permanent tenancy), if

the landlord bona-fide requires the land

for any of the following purposes:––

(a) for cultivating personally, or

(b) for any non-agricultural purpose.

(2) The notice required to be given under

sub-section (1) shall be in writing, shall

state the purpose for which the landlord

requires the land and shall be served on

the tenant on or before the 31st day of

December 1956. A copy of such notice shall,

at the same time, be sent to the Mamlatdar.

An application for possession under section

29 shall be made to the Mamlatdar on or

before the 31st day of March 1957.

9

(3) Where a landlord is a minor, or a

widow, or a person subject to mental or

physical disability then such notice may be

given [and an application for possession

under section 29 may be made,]––

(i) by the minor within one year from

the date on which he attains majority;

(ii) by the successor-in-title of a

widow within one year from the date on

which her interest in the land ceases to

exist;

(iii) within one year from the date on

which mental or physical disability

ceases to exist; and

(iv)       

[Provided that where a person of such

category is a member of a joint family, the

provisions of this sub-section shall not

apply if at least one member of the joint

family is outside the categories mentioned

in the sub-section unless before the 31

st

day of March 1958 the share of such person

in the joint family has been separated by

metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on

inquiry is satisfied that the share of such

person in the land is separated, having

regard to the area, assessment,

classification and value of the land, in

the same proportion as the share of that

person in the entire joint family property,

and not in a large proportion].

10.Section 31A enumerate the conditions of

termination of tenancy. Section 32 of the 1948 Act

10

was comprehensively amended by Act No. 15 of 1957.

Various measures of agrarian reform under which

tillers of the soil were made the owners of the land,

was introduced in the Act by Act No. 15 of 1957.

This Court in Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Others Vs.

Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Another (1983) 3 SCC

437 noticed the object of amendment Act No. 15 of

1957 in following words:-

“6. The Tenancy Act was comprehensively

amended by Amending Act 15 of 1957. The

amendment brought in a revolutionary

measure of agrarian reforms making tiller

of the soil the owner of the land. This was

done to achieve the object of removing all

intermediaries between tillers of the soil

and the State. Section 32 provides that by

mere operation of law, every tenant of

agricultural land situated in the area to

which the Act applies shall become by the

operation of law, the owner thereof. He is

declared to be a deemed purchaser without

anything more on his part. A Constitution

Bench of this court in Sri Ram Ram Narain

Medhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459

held that:

“The title of the landlord to the

land passes immediately to the tenant

on the tillers’ day and there is a

completed purchase or sale thereof as

between the landlord and the tenant.

The title of the land which was

vested originally in the landlord

passes to the tenant on the tillers’

day and this title is defeasible only

11

in the event of the tenant failing to

appear or making a statement that he

is not willing to purchase the land

or commit default in payment of the

price thereto as determined by the

Tribunal.”

Therefore, it is unquestionably

established that on the tillers’ day, the

landlord’s interest in the land gets

extinguished and simultaneously by a

statutory sale without anything more by the

parties, the extinguished title of the

landlord is kindled or created in the

tenant. That very moment landlord-tenant

relationship as understood in common law or

Transfer of Property Act comes to an end.

The link and chain is broken. The absent

non-cultivating landlord ceases to have

that ownership element of the land and the

cultivating tenant, the tiller of the soil

becomes the owner thereof. This is

unquestionable. The landlord from the date

of statutory sale is only entitled to

receive the purchase price as determined by

the Tribunal under Section 32-G. In other

words, the landlord ceases to be landlord

and the tenant becomes the owner of the

land and comes in direct contact with the

State. Without any act of transfer inter

vivos the title of the landlord is

extinguished and is created simultaneously

in the tenant making the tenant the deemed

purchaser. It is an admitted position that

on April 1, 1957 Tarachand was the landlord

and Janardhan was the tenant. Tarachand

landlord was under no disability as

envisged by Section 32-F. Therefore on

April 1, 1957 Janardhan became deemed

purchaser and Mr Lalit could not controvert

this position.”

12

11.Section 32 as amended by Act No. 15 of 1957

provided that on the day of 1

st

April, 1957 (Tillers

Day), tenants shall be deemed to have purchased from

their landlord, free of all encumbrances subsisting

thereon on the said day, the land held by them as

tenant. Section 32(1), which is relevant for the

present case is as follows:-

“32. Tenants deemed to have purchased land

on tillers’ day.- [(1)] On the first day of

April 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the

tillers’ day”) every tenant shall, [subject

to the other provisions of this section and

the provisions of] the next succeeding

sections, be deemed to have purchased from

his landlord, free of all encumbrances

subsisting thereon on the said day, the

land held by him as tenant, if––

(a) such tenant is a permanent tenant

thereof and cultivates land

personally;

(b) such tenant is not a permanent

tenant but cultivates the land leased

personally; and

(i) the landlord has not given

notice of termination of his

tenancy under section 31; or

(ii) notice has been given under

section 31, but the landlord has

not applied to the Mamlatdar on or

before the 31

st

day of March 1957

under section 29 for obtaining

possession of the land; [or]

13

[(iii) the landlord has not

terminated his tenancy on any of

the grounds specified in section

14, or has so terminated the

tenancy but has not applied to the

Mamlatdar on or before the 31

st

day

of March 1957 under section 29 for

obtaining possession of the

lands] :

… … … …”

12.Section 32F, which is relevant in the present

case is as follows:-

“32F. Right of tenant to purchase where

landlord is minor, etc.- (1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in the

preceding sections,––

(a) where the landlord is a minor, or a

widow, or a person subject to any mental or

physical disability, the tenant shall have

the right to purchase such land under

section 32 within one year from the expiry

of the period during which such landlord is

entitled to terminate the tenancy under

section 31 [and for enabling the tenant to

exercise the right of purchase, the

landlord shall send an intimation to the

tenant of the fact that he has attained

majority, before the expiry of the period

during which such landlord is entitled to

terminate the tenancy under section 31] :

[Provided that where a person of such

category is a member of a joint family, the

provisions of this sub-section shall not

apply if at least one member of the joint

family is outside the categories mentioned

in this sub-section unless before the 31

st

day of March 1958 the share of such person

in the joint family has been separated by

metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on

inquiry is satisfied that the share of such

14

person in the land is separated, having

regard to the area, assessment,

classification and value of the land, in

the same proportion as the share of that

person in the entire joint family property

and not in a larger proportion].

(b)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[(1A) A tenant desirous of exercising

the right conferred on him under sub-

section (1) shall give an intimation in

that behalf to the landlord and the

Tribunal in the prescribed manner within

the period specified in that sub-section] :

[Provided that, if a tenant holding land

from a landlord (who was a minor and has

attained majority before the commencement

of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws

(Amendment) Act, 1969) has not given

intimation as required by this sub-section

but being in possession of the land on such

commencement is desirous of exercising the

right conferred upon him under sub-section

(1), he may give such intimation within a

period of two years from the commencement

of that Act].

(2) The provisions of sections 32 to 32E

(both inclusive) and sections 32G to 32R

(both inclusive) shall, so far as may be

applicable, apply to such purchase.

13.The facts of the present case as noticed above

indicate that although predecessor-in-interest of the

appellants were tenants of the land in question since

before 01.04.1957 but on the relevant day, i.e. the

15

Tillers Day, the land was held by Smt. Indirabai

Balwant Sawant, who was widow, hence the deemed

purchase as contemplated by Section 32 stood

suspended by virtue of Section 31(3). Section 31

enumerates landlord’s right to terminate tenancy for

personal cultivation and non-agricultural purpose.

In case of a minor or a widow or a person subject to

mental or physical disability, by virtue of Section

31(3), an application for termination of tenancy and

application for possession can be made by the minor

on the date on which he attains majority and by the

successor-in-title of a widow within one year from

the date on which her interest in the land ceases to

exist. Widow, Smt. Indirabai Balwant Sawant

having died on 07.05.1999, her interest ceased on

07.05.1999, which by virtue of Will was successed by

respondent No.1. Thus, by virtue of Section 31(3)

(ii), the respondent No.1 had a right to give notice

of termination of tenancy and application for

possession within one year from 07.05.1999. From the

facts of the present case it is apparent from the

record that neither any notice was given by the widow

16

in her lifetime for termination of tenancy nor her

successor-in-title, i.e. respondent No.1 gave any

notice under Section 31 for termination of tenancy

within one year from 07.05.1999 and it was on

05.09.2008, the appellants made an application under

Section 32F for purchase of land. The Sub-

Divisional Officer, Revenue Tribunal as well as the

High Court rejected the claim of the appellant only

on the ground that appellants, i.e. tenants failed to

exercise their right of purchase within the period as

prescribed under Section 32F(1), they held that the

appellant had a right of purchase under Section 32

within one year from the expiry of the period during

which successor-in-interest of landlady was entitled

to terminate the tenancy under Section 31. The

tenants having not exercised their right of purchase

within two years from 07.05.1999, the right of

purchase of the appellants has been lost.

14.This Court had occasion to consider the

provisions of Sections 31, 32 and 32F of the 1948 Act

in large number of cases. It is useful to notice few

of such cases, which are relevant for deciding the

17

issues raised in these appeals. In Amrit Bhikaji

Kale (supra), this Court held that Section 32F

postponed the date of compulsory purchase by the

tenant where the landlord is a minor or a widow. In

paragraph No.8, following has been laid down:-

“8. It may be mentioned that Section 32-F

has no application to the facts of this

case. Section 32-F postponed the date of

compulsory purchase by the tenant where the

landlord is a minor or a widow or a person

subject to mental or physical disability on

the tillers’ day. Section 32-F has an

overriding effect over Section 32 as it

opens with a non-obstante clause. The

combined effect of Sections 32-F and 32

would show that where the landlord is under

no disability as envisaged by Section 32-F

the tenant of such landlord by operation of

law would become the deemed purchaser but

where the landlord is of a class or

category as set out in Section 32-F such as

a minor, a widow or a person subject to any

mental or physical disability, the date of

compulsory sale would be postponed as

therein provided. Now, if Tarachand, the

landlord was under no disability and he was

alive on April 1, 1957 and he was the

owner, his tenant Janardhan became the

deemed purchaser. This conclusion, in our

opinion, is unassailable.”

15.In Anna Bhau Magdum, since deceased by His Legal

Representatives Vs. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai, (1995)

5 SCC 243 , this Court had occasion to consider

18

Section 32F(1A) of 1948 Act. In the above case,

original owner by gift deed dated 04.09.1953 gifted

the land to respondent, who was a minor and who

attained the majority on 17.01.1965. The proceedings

under Section 32-G of the Act were started in respect

of the said land in the year 1960, but in view of the

fact that the landlord was a minor, the said

proceedings were dropped. Fresh proceedings were

initiated in the year 1975 under Section 32-G before

the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands

Tribunal. Additional Tehsildar passed an order

holding that the tenant has lost his right to

purchase the land and declared that the purchase of

land by the tenant has become ineffective. On

remand, the Tehsildar again held that tenant could

exercise his right of purchase by sending an

intimation upto 17.01.1967 and since the tenant had

failed to send such an intimation, his right of

purchase is forfeited. It was also held that by the

amendment incorporated in Section 32F(1A) by

Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969, a further opportunity was

given to the tenant to exercise his right of purchase

19

by sending the intimation upto 17.10.1971 and that

even during this period of extension the tenant did

not avail of the opportunity. An appeal and the

revision filed by the tenant was dismissed. Writ

petition filed by the tenant was also dismissed

against which the appeal was filed. In Paragraph

Nos. 10, 12 and 13, following was held by this

Court:-

“10. In the present case it is not disputed

that the tenant did not send any intimation

as required by sub-section (1)( a) either up

to 17-1-1967 or even up to 17-10-1971 as

provided by the proviso under sub-section

(1-A) of Section 32-F. Moreover, the tenant

in his statement given on 25-8-1960 before

the Agricultural Lands Tribunal stated that

he was aware that the respondent-landlord

would be attaining majority on 17-1-1965.

Thus there was non-compliance on the part

of the tenant with the provisions of sub-

section (1-A) of Section 32-F of the Act

and on that basis it has been held that the

tenant could not avail the right of

purchase conferred under Section 32 read

with Section 32-F of the Act.

12. It cannot, therefore, be said that

there is an automatic purchase of the land

by the tenant in a case where the landlord

happens to be a minor or a widow or a

person subject to any mental or physical

disability as mentioned in Section 32-F. In

such a case the right of purchase conferred

on the tenant can be effective only if it

20

is exercised in accordance with the

provisions of Section 32-F.

13. ………………We are, therefore, of the opinion

that requirement regarding intimation by

the tenant to the landlord prescribed under

sub-section (1-A) of Section 32-F is

mandatory in nature and the failure on the

part of the tenant in the present case to

give such an intimation to the landlord

within the prescribed period has resulted

in the tenant having failed to avail the

right to purchase conferred on him and it

has been rightly held that the tenant

having failed to exercise the right to

purchase conferred on him by the Act was

liable to summary eviction under Section

32-P(1) of the Act.”

16.Again in Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS.

vs. Akubai Ganpati Nimbalkar & others, (1994) 4 SCC

443, this Court had occasion to examine Section 32F

and Section 31 of the Act. The facts of the case as

noticed in paragraph No.2 are as follows:-

“2. As landlady Shevantibai was a widow,

the deemed date of statutory purchase by

the appellant-tenant was postponed. It is

not in dispute that his right to purchase

the land was for that reason governed by

the provisions of Section 32-F of the

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1948. Shevantibai died on 8-12-1965. The

appellant thereafter on 15-6-1968 gave an

intimation to the heirs of Shevantibai that

he was interested in purchasing the land

under Section 32-F of the Act. On 9-7-1968,

the legal representatives of Shevantibai

applied under Section 32-P of the Act for a

21

declaration that as the tenant had not

complied with the requirements of Section

32-F the sale has become ineffective and

therefore the possession of land may be

restored to them as their holding was less

than the ceiling area. The Tehsildar

granted that application. Aggrieved by that

order, the appellant filed an appeal to the

Sub-Divisional Officer who allowed it and

remanded the case for deciding it under

Section 32-G of the Act. Therefore, the

heirs of Shevantibai filed a revision

petition before the Maharashtra Revenue

Tribunal and contended that since the

tenant had failed to exercise his right

under Section 32-F within the stipulated

period, the purchase had become ineffective

and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer

was in error in allowing the appeal and

sending the matter back to the Tehsildar

for deciding the same under Section 32-G.

The Tribunal accepted this contention and

allowed the revision application and

restored the order passed by the Tehsildar.

The High Court in the writ petition filed

by the appellant confirmed the order passed

by the Tribunal.”

17.The submission on behalf of the appellants that

heirs of the landlady had not given any intimation to

the appellants about her death and therefore they

could not have known who are the heirs of the

landlady and give intimation to them was rejected.

The submission that the period of one year should be

counted from the date of the knowledge of the tenants

22

was also not accepted. In Paragraph No. 4, following

has been laid down:-

“4. It was submitted by the learned counsel

that this being a welfare legislation

enacted for the benefit of tenants should

be construed in a liberal manner. He also

submitted that the heirs of the landlady

had not given any intimation to the

appellant about her death and therefore he

could not have known who were the heirs of

the landlady and given intimation to them.

He submitted that the period of one year

should be counted from the date of the

knowledge of the tenant. We cannot accept

this submission because the language of

Sections 32-F and 31 is quite clear and the

period of one year will have to be counted

in accordance with the said provisions and

not from the date of the knowledge of the

tenant. The provision of law being clear,

we cannot in such a case grant relief on

the basis of equity.”

18.Sudam Ganpat Kutwal, Power-of-Attorney-Holder of

Shankar Sitaram Bhosle Vs. Shevantabai Tukaram

Gulumkar (Dead) by LR. Maruti Shankar Pachpute,

(2006) 7 SCC 200 was a case where provisions of 1948

Act especially Sections 31 and 32F were elaborately

considered. The appellant was inducted as tenant of

agricultural land in the year 1954 and was

cultivating the land personally. The landlord filed

an application under Section 31 read with Section 29

23

in the year 1958. An order was made directing that

possession of half of the land should be delivered to

the landlord for her bonafide personal cultivation.

Landlord filed another case in the year 1964 seeking

possession of the remaining half of the land on the

ground that the appellant had committed certain

defaults. The petition was rejected. The landlord

died on 23.03.1975, and thereafter her successor-in-

title’s name was entered in the record-of-rights.

Successor-in-title filed an application under Section

32P read with Section 32F for a declaration that the

deemed statutory purchase by the tenant be declared

as void and ineffective, as the tenant had failed to

fulfil the mandatory requirement of giving a notice

of intimation of purchase within the time stipulated

under Section 32F(1A). Agricultural Land Tribunal

accepted the contention of successor-in-title holding

that tenant had failed to issue a notice of purchase.

The appellant had filed a writ petition aggrieved

with the order of Agricultural Land Tribunal, which

writ petition was dismissed. The issue, which was

24

considered by this Court has been noticed in

Paragraph No. 14 to the following effect:-

“14. The dispute in this appeal relates to

the question as to whether it was necessary

for the tenant to issue a notice of

intimation of purchase under Section 32-F

(1-A) of the Act to the successor-in-title

of Anusuyabai in regard to the half portion

retained by him under Section 31-B(1) read

with Section 31(1) of the Act and whether

the failure to do so resulted in forfeiture

of the tenant’s right to the said land or

right to purchase the said land under the

Act.”

19. After noticing various provisions of the Act,

this Court in Paragraph No. 23 of the judgment

recorded its conclusions, which is to the following

effect:-

“23. The position as disclosed by a

combined and harmonious reading of Sections

31, 32, 32-F and 32-G may be stated thus:

(a) Where the landlord has not served on

the tenant, a notice of termination [as

stated in clause ( b) of sub-section (1) of

Section 32], the tenant is deemed to have

purchased the land on the tillers’ day (1-

4-1957);

(b) Where the tenant is deemed to have

purchased the land on the tillers’ day (1-

4-1957), the Lands Tribunal is required to

issue notice and determine the price of

land to be paid by the tenant. Where there

is a deemed purchase, but the right to

25

purchase is postponed, the Land Tribunal

shall determine the price of land, as soon

as may be after the postponed date.

(c) A landlord had a right to give notice

and make an application for possession

after terminating the tenancy, if he wanted

the land bona fide for personal

cultivation, provided the notice was served

on the tenant on or before 31-12-1956 (with

copy to the Mamlatdar) and application for

possession under Section 29 was filed on or

before 31-3-1957.

(d) A landlord widow is also entitled to

make an application for possession under

sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act.

Sub-section (3) of Section 31 which is an

enabling provision, extends the time within

which the widow can seek possession under

Section 31(1) of the Act, beyond 31-12-

1956. As a result, where the landlord is a

widow, then the notice required under sub-

section (1) of Section 31 may be given and

the application for possession under

Section 29 may be made by her so long as

her interest in the land exists. Such

notice can also be given by the successor-

in-title of the widow within one year from

the date on which the interest of the widow

in the land ceases to exist.

(e) Where the landlord is a widow [and she

does not exercise her right under Section

31(1) of the Act], the right to purchase

under the deemed purchase is postponed till

the expiry of the period during which such

(disabled) landlord is entitled to

terminate the tenancy under Section 31(3).

The tenant desirous of exercising such

right shall, however, give an intimation in

that behalf to the landlord and the

Tribunal within one year thereafter, as

required under Section 32-F(1-A).

26

Consequently, where the landlord, being a

widow as on 1-4-1957, does not choose to

terminate the tenancy for personal

cultivation, the tenancy continues during

her lifetime and on the death of the widow,

her successor-in-title will have the right

to terminate the tenancy within one year

from the date of death of the widow. The

tenant shall have the right to purchase

such land, under Section 32, within one

year from the expiry of the period during

which such successor-in-title of the widow

is given the right to terminate the tenancy

under Section 31(3) by giving an intimation

as required under Section 32-F(1-A).

(f) Where a landlord, who is a widow,

exercises her right of termination and

secures possession of part of the tenanted

land for personal cultivation under Section

31(1) of the Act, then there is no question

of her successor-in-title giving a notice

of termination within one year from the

date on which the widow’s interest ceases

to exist. When Section 31(3) ceases to

apply, Section 32-F also will not apply and

there is no need for the tenant to give any

intimation under Section 32-F(1-A).

(g) On an order for possession being made

in favour of a widow landlord in regard to

land up to 50% of the tenanted land under

Section 31(1) read with Section 31-B(1),

the widow will get possession of such land

and the tenant continues in possession in

regard to the remaining land. In regard to

the land remaining with the tenant, rent

has to be fixed under Section 31-D, until

the purchase price is determined under

Section 32-G(5) and is paid by the tenant

purchaser.”

27

20.In the above case, this Court held that there was

no need at all for the tenant to issue any notice of

intimation to the landlord as successor-in-tile as

the landlord has lost right to terminate the tenancy

regarding remaining half land. The contention that

tenant in facts of that case has to issue notice

under Section 32F within the period prescribed was

rejected while observing following in paragraph No.

27:-

“27. Learned counsel for the respondent

relied on the decisions of this Court in

Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan

Trade (1983) 3 SCC 437 , Anna Bhau Magdum v.

Babasaheb Anandrao Desai (1995) 5 SCC 243 ,

Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati

Nimbalkar (1999) 4 SCC 443 and Balchandra

Anantrao Rakvi v. Ramchandra Tukaram (2001)

8 SCC 616 to contend that the tenant has to

issue a notice under Section 32-F within

the period prescribed and if he fails to do

so, he loses the right to purchase the land

and the landlord will become entitled to

the same absolutely. These were all cases

where the landlord under disability had not

sought possession for personal cultivation

under Section 31(1) and where admittedly,

Sections 31(3) and 32-F applied and

consequently, there was an obligation on

the part of the tenant to send an

intimation under Section 32-F(1-A). None of

the cases related to a widow landlord who

had terminated the tenancy during her

lifetime and taken possession of a portion

28

of the tenanted land. Therefore, the said

decisions will not apply.”

21.The next judgment to be noticed is Tukaram Maruti

Chavan Vs. Maruti Narayan Chavan (Dead) by LRS. And

Others (2008) 9 SCC 358 , which judgment has been

relied by Revenue Tribunal also in the present case.

The facts of the case have been noticed in the

Paragraph Nos. 2 to 5, which are to the following

effect:-

“2. The relevant facts leading to the

filing of this appeal, as emerging from the

case made out by the appellant, may be

summarised as follows:

The dispute arose out of the

provision of the Bombay Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1948

(hereinafter referred to as “the

Act”) relating to the land being Gat

No. 44, measuring 5 hectares and 24

ares in Village Malangaon, Kavathe,

Mahankal Tehsil of Sangli District in

the State of Maharashtra (in short

“the disputed land”). Late Smt

Narmadabai who was a widow, was the

original landowner of the disputed

land. She died in 1964 leaving behind

her two sons, Ramchandra and Laxman

Bhau Sutar.

3. On 1-4-1957 i.e. on the Tiller’s Day,

the appellant was in cultivation of the

disputed land. The original tenant named

Maruti died subsequently in 1994 during the

pendency of the writ petition in the High

29

Court of Judicature at Bombay. The original

tenant had initiated proceedings under

Section 32-G of the Act before the

Additional Tahsildar, Kavathe Makhanlal,

and the case was decided in his favour with

the purchase price of the disputed land

being fixed. Thereafter, one of the heirs

of the deceased landowner Narmadabai, named

Laxman, preferred an appeal to the

appellate authority against the said order.

After the matter was remanded back to the

Additional Tahsildar, again an order

affirming the previous position was passed

in favour of the tenant under Section 32-G.

This time, the other heir of late Smt

Narmadabai, namely, Ramchandra, challenged

the said order before the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Miraj, and he again by his order

dated 31-3-1978, remanded the matter to the

Tahsildar for a detailed enquiry and

decision on the following points:

“(1) The clear title of the disputed

land of the applicant Ramchandra

should be enquired.

(2) The point of giving notice under

Section 32-F of the Act to the

landlord and the Agricultural Lands

Tribunal should be enquired as per

the provisions under Section 32-F of

the Act.”

4. When the matter came up before the

Tahsildar, he passed an order holding the

second respondent as the sole owner of the

disputed land. The purchase of the disputed

land by the appellant was therefore

declared to be ineffective for want of

notice under Section 32-F and the disputed

land was ordered to be disposed of under

Section 32-P of the Act. Thereafter, the

appellant preferred a revision before the

30

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but the same

was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the

Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ

petition before the Bombay High Court on

28-12-1983. The Bombay High Court by its

impugned judgment and order dated 16-4-

1999, dismissed the said writ petition on

the ground that the respondent (Ramchandra)

was the sole owner of the disputed land in

pursuance of the letters of administration

obtained by him from the civil court. It is

this decision of the High Court, which is

impugned in this appeal in respect of which

the writ petition was filed.”

22.The contention of the appellant has been noticed

in Paragraph No.10 of the judgment, which is to the

following effect:-

“10. The learned counsel on behalf of the

appellant contended that if Sections 31 and

32-F are read together, then the tenant is

not required to give any notice to the

landlord because neither Narmadabai nor her

successor-in-interest ever gave any notice

to the tenant under Section 31 of the Act.

Counsel for the respondent on the other

hand contended that Section 32-F is a

complete section in itself and the

provision of the earlier sections cannot

influence or have overriding effect. He

therefore contended that whatever be the

right of the landlord under Section 31, the

same gets separated by virtue of the

provisions of Section 32-F. This contention

was negated by the counsel for the

appellant arguing that Section 32-F cannot

be said to have overriding effect on all

the earlier sections.”

31

23.This Court held that tenant was under legal

obligation or statutory duty to give notice of his

intention to purchase the land as required under

Section 32F. In Paragraph No. 13, following has been

stated:-

“13. In our view, the High Court correctly

pointed out that the provisions of Section

32-F are independent in nature and are

separate from the provisions under Section

31 of the Act. The exception mentioned

under Section 32-F(1) to sub-section (2) is

limited to the sections referred to in it

i.e. from Sections 32 to 32-E (both

inclusive) and Sections 32-G to 32-R (both

inclusive). Further the expression

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the

preceding sections” under sub-section (1)

of Section 32-F is of paramount importance.

Considering the fact that Section 31 is not

included in the sections mentioned under

sub-section (2) of Section 32-F, and the

expression “Notwithstanding anything

contained in the preceding sections” under

sub-section (1) of Section 32-F, we are of

the view that the right given to the

landlord under Section 31 has nothing to do

with the right given to the tenant under

Section 32-F for purchasing the land and

consequently it has to be held that the

appellant in this case was under a legal

obligation or statutory duty to give notice

of his intention to purchase the land as

required under Section 32-F.”

24.The submission of the appellant that she could

not serve a notice since she was not sure of the

32

title of the disputed land was also not accepted by

this Court. Following was observed by this Court in

Paragraph No.18:-

“18. The learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant has argued before

us that the appellant could not serve a

notice to the landowner since he was not

sure about the title of the disputed land

owing to a dispute between the two sons of

late Smt Narmadabai who were claiming the

title of the disputed land. We cannot

accept this contention of the appellant.

The order passed by the Tahsildar, Kavathe

Mahankal, lays down the fact that Shri

Ramchandra, Respondent 2 in this case, had

produced a certified copy of the judgment

and order dated 28-4-1966, passed by the

Senior Joint Civil Judge in Miscellaneous

Application No. 25 of 1965 in which it has

been declared that Shri Ramchandra is the

owner of the disputed land on the basis of

the will executed by his mother late Smt

Narmadabai. The appellant also in his

deposition admitted that:

“The owner of the said land was Smt

Narmadabai Bhau Sutar. Narmadabai

died before 10/12 years. Ramchandra

Bhau Sutar filed suit on the basis of

the will, and got transferred the

land of Narmadabai in his name.”

25.The ratio of the above noted judgments can be

restated in following words:-

33

(i) For a landlord suffering from a disability

on the Tillers Day i.e. 01.04.1957, the

deemed purchase shall be suspended.

(ii)Landlord suffering from a disability has a

right under Section 31(3) of the Act to

give notice of termination of tenancy and

file an application for possession.

(iii)Under Section 31(3), a minor, within one

year from date on which he attains majoriy;

a successor-in-title of a widow within one

year from the date on which her interest in

the land ceases to exist; and landlord

within one year from the date on which

his/her mental or physical disability

ceases to exist can also give an

application for termination of tenancy and

possession.

(iv)Under Section 32F tenant has right to

purchase where landlord was minor or a

widow or a person subject to mental or

physical disability within one year from

the expiry of the period during which such

landlord is entitled to terminate the

tenancy under Section 31.

34

(v) The tenant, in event, does not exercise his

right of purchase within the period as

prescribed under Section 32F(1)(a), his/her

right to purchase shall be lost.

26.In the present case, it is undisputed fact that

landlady died on 07.05.1999 and within one year

thereafter her successor-in-title did not exercise

his right under Section 31(3) and thereafter within

one year tenant has not given any intimation for

purchase as contemplated by Section 32(F). The

question to be answered is as to whether in the above

facts, Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Tribunal as

well as the High Court were right in their conclusion

that right of the tenant, i.e. the appellant has

lost, he having not issued any intimation for

purchase of the land within one year from expiry of

the period as contemplated under Section 31(3).

27. The ratio of this Court as noticed above

especially in judgments of this Court in Appa

Narsappa Magdum (supra), Sudam Ganpat Kutwal(supra)

and Tukaram Maruti Chavan (supra) clearly support the

submission of learned counsel for the respondents

35

that the appellants having not exercised their right

to purchase under Section 32F(1) read with (1A)

within the time prescribed the right of purchase of

the tenant is lost. But there is one aspect of the

matter which needs to be noted and has not been

considered in the above judgments rendered by two-

Judge Benches of this Court which we shall notice

hereinafter.

28.The 1948 Act was amended by Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969.

Section 32F was also amended by the above Amendment

Act, 1969. It is useful to refer to the Statement of

Objects and Reasons which led to amendment in Section

32 of the Act. L.A. Bill No. LXII of 1969 was

introduced in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on

18

th

August, 1969. The Statement of Objects and

Reasons of the Bill are relevant for the present case

which are to the following effect:

“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS.

It has come to the notice of Government

that a number of tenants in the Bombay area

and   the   Vidarbha   region   of   the   State,

failed   to   acquire   ownership   right   in   the

lands   held   by   them   on   account   of   their

36

being dispossessed from the land otherwise

than   in   the   manner   laid   down   in   the

relevant   tenancy   law.   It   is,   therefore,

expedient   to   amend   the   tenancy   laws   in

force   in   these   regions   for   safe­guarding

the interest of these dispossessed tenants.

It is also noticed that a large number

of tenants in the Bombay area of the State

holding land from landlords who were minors

have lost right to purchase land for their

failure   to   give   intimation   within   the

period   laid   down   in   sub­section   (IA)   of

section 32, It is, therefore, necessary to

give these tenants a fresh opportunity to

purchase land. Section 32F is, therefore,

being suitably amended for that purpose.

As   a   result   of   the   decision   of   the

Supreme   Court   of   India,   in   Civil   appeals

Nos.   312(N)   and   313(N)   of   1966   from   the

judgement   of   the   High   Court   of   Gujarat

regarding   jurisdiction   of   Civil   Court   in

certain   matters,   it   has   also   become

necessary   to   suitably   amend   certain

sections of the tenancy laws in force in

the three regions of the State.

The   Bill   seeks   to   achieve   the   above

objects.”

29.In the Statement of Objects and Reasons it is

noticed that a large number of tenants in the Bombay

area of the State holding lands from landlords who

were minors have lost right to purchase land for

their failure to give intimation within the period

laid down in sub-section (1A) of Section 32. The

37

above reason lead to the amendment. By Amendment Act,

1969 in Section 32F sub-section (1) in clause (a)

following words were added:

“and for enabling the tenant to exercise

the right of purchase, the landlord shall

send an intimation to the tenant of the

fact that he has attained majority, before

the expiry of the period during which such

landlord is entitled to terminate the

tenancy under section 31”

30.The above amendment caste a statutory obligation

on a landlord who has attained the majority to send

intimation to the tenant. The above amendment was

made to enable the tenant to exercise the right of

purchase which was the object and purpose of the

amendment.

31.Section 31(3) enumerates three categories of

landlord who suffers from one or other disabilities

due to which the right of purchase of tenant has been

suspended on Tillers Day. The three categories of

landlord have been empowered to give notice of

termination of tenancy. Section 31(3) for ready

reference is reproduced again:

38

“Section 31(3) Where a landlord is a minor,

or a widow, or a person subject to mental

or physical disability then such notice may

be given [and an application for possession

under section 29 may be made,]––

(i) by the minor within one year

from the date on which he attains

majority;

(ii) by the successor-in-title of a

widow within one year from the date on

which her interest in the land ceases to

exist;

(iii) within one year from the date

on which mental or physical disability

ceases to exist; and

(iv)       ”

32.Amendment in Section 32(1)F(a) added by Act No.49

of 1969 expressly covered a case of landlord who was

minor and has attained majority. Intimation by a

minor landlord who has attained majority has been

made a statutory obligation of the landlord so that

tenant may exercise his right of purchase. The other

two categories which are a widow or a person subject

to mental or physical disability have not been

expressly included in the amendment incorporated in

Act 49 of 1969. The Statement of Objects and Reasons

of the amendment given in 1969 as well as the express

39

provisions of such amendment are for the purposes and

object to enable the tenant to exercise right of

purchase. When for one category of landlord i.e.

minor it is mandated that he will intimate the tenant

after he attained the majority so that tenant may be

enabled to exercise the right of purchase, we are of

the view that the same object has to be read in two

other categories of landlord that is the successor-

in-title of a widow and a landlord whose mental or

physical disability has been ceased. When the

legislative object is to facilitate a tenant of a

disabled landlord after cessation of disability to

exercise right of purchase, the same benefit needs to

be extended to other two categories of disabled

landlord. We do not find any distinction in three

categories of disabled landlord nor tenant of a

landlord who was a minor can be put on any higher

footing as compared to other landlords suffering from

the above two disabilities. The question may be asked

that amendment only expressly included the landlord

who has attained majority to send intimation and the

legislature consciously did not include the other two

40

categories of landlord i.e. successor-in-interest of

a widow and landlord of a mental and physical

disability ceases to exist. The Objects and Reasons

and express amendment made by Act 49 of 1969 were

with a view to enable the tenant to exercise his

right of purchase. The said legislative intendment is

to be extended to all tenants of landlords who were

suffering from disability on the Tillers Day, whether

successor-in-title of a widow or a landlord whose

mental or physical disability ceases. All the three

categories of tenants should be extended the same

benefit and provision should be interpreted so that

all tenants may be enabled to exercise their right of

purchase effectively and in real sense.

33.As in the present case tenant’s case is that he

was unaware of the death of the landlady since for

the last several years she was living in Bombay, the

date of knowledge of death of the landlady cannot be

said to be a irrelevant factor and unless the tenant

is aware of the death of landlady or in case of

landlord suffering from physical or mental

disability, how he will exercise his right of

41

purchase is an important question. The 1948 Act and

the Amendments made by 1969 Act were with intent to

facilitate tenants to exercise their right. The

Amendments by Act 15 of 1957 was agrarian reform

making tillers of the soil the owners of the land

which was done to achieve the object of making all

tillers of the soil as owners of the land. While

interpreting the provisions of Section 32F, 1A as

well as Section 31(3) the purpose and object of the

1948 Act, amendments made therein from time to time

cannot be lost sight.

34.When Section 32F of Act 1948 gives right to

purchase to a tenant whose landlord was suffering

from a disability on Tillers Day, the exercise of

right to purchase by such tenant has to be

interpreted in a manner so as to make the exercise of

right meaningful and effective. The above said right

cannot be defeated on the ground that it was not

exercised within period prescribed when the tenant is

unaware as to when the period has begun.

35.The period prescribed for exercising the right to

purchase is not a period of limitation but a

42

reasonable period prescribed for the exercise of a

right. The knowledge of cessation of disability of

landlord by the tenant can only be commencement of

period prescribed.

36.When a statute gives a right to a tenant, statute

needs to be interpreted in a manner so as to make the

right workable, effective and meaningful. Such right

cannot be defeated unless it is proved that tenant

even after knowing that disability has ceased does

not exercise his right within the period prescribed.

37.A two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Appa

Narsappa Magdum (supra) has expressly rejected the

submission that tenant had no intimation of the death

of landlady. Further judgments of this Court in Sudam

Ganpat Kutwal (supra) and Tukaram Maruti

Chavan(supra) also laid down the same ratio. The

judgments in the above three cases were rendered by

the two-Judge Benches in which cases the amendments

made by Act 49 of 1969 were neither raised or

considered. We, thus, are of the view that the ratio

laid down in the above cases needs to be reconsidered

and explained in view of the object and purpose for

43

which amendments were made in Section 32F(1)(a) by

Act 49 of 1969 as noticed above. We, thus, refer

following questions for consideration of a larger

Bench:

(1)Whether the object and purpose of amendment

made in Section 32F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969 is

also relevant and applicable for exercise of

right to purchase by a tenant of landlord who

was widow or suffering from mental and

physical disability on Tillers Day ?

(2)Whether the successor-in-interest of a widow

is also obliged to send an intimation to the

tenant of cessation of interest of the widow

to enable the tenant to exercise his right of

purchase.

(3)In the event the answer to above question (1)

or (2) is in affirmative, whether decision of

this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum, Sudam

Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan

(supra)needs reconsideration and explanation.

38.Let the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the

Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. In the

meantime, we direct that the parties shall maintain

the status quo.

44

......................J.

( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

......................J.

( AJAY RASTOGI )

New Delhi,

December 14, 2018.

45