G.B. KASHIRASAGAR versus L.A. NARODE

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 25-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

i 
I 
-;}'> 
~ 
.\ 
:4. 
.~ 
~ 
G.B. KASHIRASAGAR 
A 
v. 
L.A. NARODE 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 
. (M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
B 
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy: 
Bombay Tenancy and Agiicultural Lands Act, 1948: 
Ss.31, 31 C-Eviction of tenant of sugarcane land-Bar to end ten an- c 
CyApplication by landlord for eviction of tenant-Order passed in tenns of 
compromise - Te11ant sun·e11dering 3 acres and retaining I acre and 38 guntas 
of land-Landlord again seeking to tem1i11ate the tenancy 011 the ground of 
bona fide perso11al cultivation alleging that earlier order was merely a co11sent 
order and strictly was not a11 order u/s 31-Held, provision u/s 31 read with D 
s. 31C for evic1io11 of te11a11t is one time measure-Proceedings u/s 31 had 
been once resorled. to by landlord and a decisio11 was made thereon with 
consent of pa1ties to which the authority hea1i11g the matter put his seal of 
approval-Sectio11 31C is a11 obvious bar to a second attempt to end the 
te11ancy. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2554 of 
1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.80 of the Bombay High 
Court in S.C.A. No. 2847 of 1975. 
F 
V.N. Ganpule and V.B. Joshi for the Appellant. 
Ms. J.S. Wad for the Respondent. 
The followi!1g Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
The view of the High Court in rendering the appellant helpless in 
retaining his tenancy over a small piece of land admeasuring 1 acre and 
38 guntas is put to challenge in this appeal. 
It transpires that the appellant was in cultivating possession of 4 acres 
and 38 guntas of land under the respondent-landlord. On an application H 
l 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A nioved by the landlord under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [the Act), the Tenancy Awai Karkun, Kopar-
~ .. 
gaon passed an order on 3.5.1954 on the basis of a compromise effected 
between the parties whereunder 3 acres of land was surrendered to the 
landlord and the balance land was left to be retained by the tenant. It is 
B beyond dispute that had the application been decided on merit, the worst 
that could have happened to the tenant W9-S that he would have been made 
to vacate half the tenanted land .. As is obvious, the tenant was worse off by 
the compromise and was left to retain less than half of the land to the 
extent of 1 acre. 38 guntas only. Be that as it may, the situation continued 
as such, when a second attempt was made by the landlord to evict the 
c tenant under the same provision of Section 31 of the Act. This time, there 
again was a compromise. The land was conceded to be sugarcane land. 
Undeniably, different provisions of the Act apply to sugarcane lands, 
details of which we are not presently concerned with; except to say that 
the tenants of the sugarcane lands were then not evictable. Later came a 
D notification which permitted eviction of tenants of sugarcane lands as well, 
~ 
provided such an endeavour did not come to clash with the provisions of 
Section 31C and 31D of the Act. Section 31C provides that the tenancy of 
any land left with the tenant after the termination of the tenancy under 
Section 31 shall not at any time afterwards be liable to termination again 
on the ground that the landlord bona fide required that land for personal 
E cultivation. Section 31D provides that if, in consequence of the termination 
of the tenancy under section 31 any part of the land leased is left with the 
tenant, the rent shall be apportioned in the prescribed manner in propor-
tion to the area of the. land left with the tenant. The notification prompted 
the landlord to move again, seeking the land left with the tenant for bona 
F fide personal cultivation. He naturally was confronted by the tenant with 
the bar under Section 31C of the Act. Two courts in the revenue hierarchy 
employed the bar and decided in favour of the tenant-appellant but the 
Land Tribunal in revision at the instance of the landlord, upset those 
orders and the High Court in a writ petition, has come to confirm the 
;-
same. 
G 
The ground on which the Land Tribunal and the High Court have 
demolished the defence available in Section 31C is that the earlier order 
),. 
under Section 31, dated 3.5.1954 was, strictly speaking, not an order under 
Section 31 but merely a consent order or a compromise order; not an order 
H of the kind envisaged under Section 31C so as to erect a bar. It is to 
G.B. KASHIRASAGAR v. L.A NARODE 
3 
e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.