LexBABAN BALAJI MORE (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERS versus BABAJI HARI SHELAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 593 : 2024 INSC 203 Baban Balaji More (Dead) by LRs. & others v. Babaji Hari Shelar (Dead) by LRs. & others (Civil Appeal No. 8356 of 2017) 14 March 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 had application to the subject Watan lands; whether the appellants (legal heirs of the original Watandar) were right in proceeding against the tenants u/ss.5, 11 & 11A, Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 after the death of the original Watandar, in February/March, 1958; whether the tenancy in question was lawfully subsisting on Tillers’ Day and were the tenants entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase of the tenanted agricultural Watan lands. Interpretation and harmonious construction of the 1874 Act, 1948 Act and the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962. Headnotes Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – ss.88, 88CA, 29-31, 32-32-R – Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 – ss.5, 11, 11A – Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 – s.8 – Applicability of the 1948 Act to the subject Watan lands – After the Abolition Act that came into effect from 01.01.1963, lawfully leased Patel Watan land whose lease was subsisting as on 01.01.1963, if was covered by the Tenancy Act and the tenant of such Watan land if had the right to purchase such land: Held: All Watan lands were not to be treated as Government lands – Subject Watan lands were not covered by s.88(1)(a), Tenancy Act and could not be treated as Government lands – By virtue of the ‘Explanation’ to s.88(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act, all other Watan lands, including the subject Watan lands, were covered by all the provisions of the Tenancy Act – However, s.88CA thereof, introduced in July, 1958, granted such Watan lands exemption from ss.32 to 32-R, 33-A, 33-B and 33-C – Therefore, ss.29 and 594 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 31, Tenancy Act were very much applicable to such Watan lands all through – Thus, the heirs of the original Watandar (appellants) could not have aspired to secure possession without reference to the procedure u/s.29, 31 – Limited exemption from certain provisions of the Tenancy Act, afforded by s.88CA thereof, continued until the Abolition Act came into force on 01.01.1963 – Thereafter, as the very institution of Patel Watan stood abolished, the limited exemption extended to such Watan lands u/s.88CA, Tenancy Act also ceased – Therefore, after the advent of the Abolition Act, Patel Watan land which was lawfully leased, and the lease of which was subsisting as on 01.01.1963, stood covered by the Tenancy Act in its entirety and the tenant of such Watan land was entitled to all the benefits under the provisions thereof, including the right to purchase such land – It was not open to the appellants (legal heirs of the original Watandar) to proceed against the tenants under the provisions of ss.5, 11 & 11A, 1874 Act after the death of the original Watandar, in February/March, 1958 as the provisions of the Tenancy Act were very much applicable to the subject lands by then and more so, ss.29 and 31 thereof – Thus, the appellants could not have taken lawful possession of these lands from the tenants pursuant to the order dtd. 18.04.1961 passed u/ss.5, 11 & 11A, 1874 Act – The same was rightly held to be invalid in the revisionary order and that finding was correctly held to be justified by High Court– Thus, the tenancy was lawfully subsisting on 01.04.1957, i.e., Tillers’ Day, and the tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase of these tenanted agricultural Watan lands u/s.32 of the Tenancy Act in terms of s.8 of the Abolition Act, after the exemption afforded by s.88CA ceased to exist – That right became operational on 27.11.1964, when these Watan lands were regranted to the heirs of the original Watandar – Impugned judgment not interfered. [Paras 20-23, 33] Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – s.88(1) (a) – Explanation – Merely explained the position and was not substantive in nature – Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 – ss.5, 23: Held: Insertion of the ‘Explanation’ was not an amendment of the provision which would have prospective effect and not apply to the application filed on 14.06.1958 u/s.5 of the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 – The ‘
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.