BALCHANDRA ANANTRAO RAKVI AND ORS. versus RAMCHANDRA TUKARAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 03-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BALCHANDRA ANANTRAO RAKVI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAMCHANDRA TUKARAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 3, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Section 88( 1 )(d)-
Proviso (b) and (c) and Section 32-G. 
Agricultural land-Assumption of management by Government-
Termination of management subsequently-Tenant wishing to purchase land-
Non-exercise of right by tenant to purchase land under Section 32 within one 
year from the expiry o,f period during which landlord is entitled to terminate 
tenancy-Effect o,f-Held giving of an intimation is concomitant of the exercise 
o,f the right to purchase land under Section 32 by tenant-Tenant has to exercise 
the right to purchase and intimate that fact within prescribed period-On 
.failure of landlord to tenninate the tenancy the tenant does not automatically 
become a deemed purchaser-Application.filed by tenant for fixing of purchase 
price after JO years of expiry of statutory period held not maintainable. 
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 came into 
force in December, 1948. On December 19, 1949 the State Government 
assumed the management of the land in dispute under Section 44 of the 
Act. However, by a Notification dated October 1, 1957 issued under Section 
61 of the Act the management of the Government of the lands in dispute 
was terminated. In 1968 the first respondent filed an application under 
Section 32-G for fixation of the purchase price of lands in dispute. The 
appellant contested the application on the ground that it was barred by 
limitation. The Additional Tehsildar dismissed the application holding that 
the first respondent was not the tenant of the lands in dispute. As the 
tenant had not exercised his option to purchase the lands within the time 
permitted by clause (b) of the proviso to clause (d) of sub-section (i) of 
section 88 of the Act, he had lost the right to purchase them. The appellate 
authority allowed the appeal of the first respondent holding that he was 
tenant of the lands in dispute. The appellants preferred revision before 
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal whkh took the view that after the 
termination of the management of the lands in dispute by the Government 
the first respondent being a tenant became the deemed purchaser and 
469 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
therefore the question of exercise of option to purchase the lands in dispute 
by him did not arise. The High Court dismissed the application filed by the 
appellant. It held. that (i) Sections 2 to 87 ·A of the Act applied to the lands 
in dispute on release from the management of the Government; (ii) that 
the first respondent was the tenant and it was not necessary for him to give 
an intimation with regard to exercise of the right to purchase the lands in 
dispute under clause (b) of the first proviso to clause (d) of Section 88(1); 
(iii) the absence of a provision prescribing the mode to exercise the right to 
purchase the land, result in converting a tenant who is entitled tO purchase 
the land into a deemed purchaser of the land under Section 32 of the Act; 
and (iv) when the landlord fails to terminate the tenancy the proviso to 
Section 32 will be attracted and the tenant automatically becomes a deemed 
purchaser. 
In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant· 
landlords that (i) mere declaration that the first respondent was the tenant 
would not make him a deemed purchaser of the lands in dispute and that 
the High Court had gone beyond the scope of the lis in the application in 
creating the rights of a deemed purchaser in the first respondent; (ii) 
Section 88(1)(d) of the Act was not properly construed by the High Court 
and therefore the order, under challenge, was liable to be set aside; (iii) the 
first respondent, not having intima~ed his option to purchase the lands in 
dispute within the specified time of one year under the first proviso to 
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act, had lost the right to 
purchase the lands. 
Allowi~g the appeals in part and setting aside the order of High 
Court, the Court 
HELD : 1. Tenant has to exercise the right to purchase the land and 
intimate that fact to the landlord and the Tribunal within the prescribed 
period. After the expiry of that period the exercise of that right by the 
tenant, if any, will be ineffective. [483-H; 484-A] 
2. The 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.