DAYANDEOGANPAT JADHAV versus MADHAV VITHAL BHASKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 21-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DAYANDEOGANPAT JADHAV 
A 
v. 
MADHA V VITHAL BHASKAR AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 21, 2005 
(B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sections 15(2), 
32 and 32?-Land in possession of tenant entitled to become 'deemed 
purchaser '-Its surrender to landlord-Legality of-Held: Consequences of C 
refusal to purchase· the land were explained to tenant, yet he indicated his 
unwillingness to purchase it, reiterated same after second thought and also 
in a subsequent year-Tenant surrendered his tenancy rights in respect of 
that piece of /and-Subsequent initiation of proceedings by him for same 
piece of land combined with another piece showed he wanted to take a 
chance by playing 'second innings'. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 136-Revocation of leave to 
appeal-Al/ facts placed on record in affidavit-in-reply not stated in Special 
Leave Petition-However, material document on which strong reliance was 
placed in counter-affidavit had not been suppressed by appellant-Held: 
Leave to appeal should not be revoked especially as it was granted after E 
counter-affidavit had been filed, matter heard on several occasions, whereby 
Court became aware of stand of respondent and vacated interim relief 
Appellant was tenant of respondent-landlord in respect of agricultural 
lands comprised in gut nos. 2325 and 2326, and was cultivating them. On 
tiller's day, 1st April, 1957, their father was in possession of lands comprised F 
in gut nos. 2326, and as per Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, on that day they were entitled to become 
'deemed purchaser' of those lands. However, the Mamlatdar, based on 
statements of appellant and respondent, held that possession of the lands 
comprised in gut nos. 2326 should be handed over to respondent. The G 
Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal held that the appellant had 
surrendered the above land as he was not interested in purchasing it and hence 
the 'deemed purchase' had become ineffective. 
The appellant on December 10, 1976, approached the Mamlatdar and 
439 
II 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Agricultural Lands Tribunal praying that they had become 'deemed 
purchaser' of agricultural lands comprised in gut nos. 2325 and 2326. The 
Tribunal, in its order dated January 31, 1985 held that as an inquiry in 
respect of lands comprised in gut no. 2326 had been conducted and purchase 
had been declared ineffective, it was not necessary to make inquiry for that 
B land. Regarding that lands comprised in gut no. 2325, it held that the appellant 
had become 'deemed purchaser', fixed the price and ordered them to pay it. 
The appellant preferred an appeal against this order. The Appellate 
Authority held that the surrender by appellant of land comprised in gut No. 
2326 was not in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Act. The appeal was 
C allowed and matter was remanded to lower court for fixation of purchase-price 
of the land. Against this, revision application of respondent before the 
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, respondent 
moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court 
held that in respect of land comprised in gut no. 2326, the father of appellant 
had become 'deemed purchaser' on the tiller's day. However as he was not 
D willing to purchase that land, possession was given to the respondent of the 
said land in accordance with the order of Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands 
Tribunal. This order remained unchallenged. In the circumstances, the High 
Court allowed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that they had surrendered property comprised in 
E gut no. 2325 and not the land in gut no. 2326. Alternatively, it was contended, 
assuming that surrender was in respect of property comprised in gut no. 2326, 
since requisite procedure was not followed, the so called surrender was 
unlawful. 
F 
Respondent contended that (i) appellant surrendered their tenancy rights 
to them and they were put in possession of the disported land; (ii) appellant 
had suppressed the fact that they had taken over the possession of land 
comprised in gut no. 2326, and hence they were not entitled to equitable relief 
under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1. Order ofMamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal that 
the tenant was no more interested in purchase of land and surr

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