GANPATI BAYAJI PATIL versus SBRIDHAR BABAJI VIBHUTE (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 58 · Decided: 22-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GANPATI BAYAJI PATIL 
v. 
SBRIDHAR BABAJI VIBHUTE (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 22, 1996 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 : Sections 32G, 
33B and 88 G. 
Land Law~Tenant in occupation on tillers' day-Scheme of Act-
C Tenant becoming deemed purchaser of land-Exemption under Section 88C 
to a small landlord-Criteria for exemption-On tillers day joint family 
landlord of the land in question-Subsequent partition in joint f amity-Land 
in question coming to the share of respondent-Respondent thereafter apply-
ing for certificate under section 88-C-Revenue Tribunal holding that the 
D . respondent who obtained these lands on partition of the joint family was not 
entitled to apply for a certificate under section 88C-1he rights of the appel-
lant-tenant could not be defeated by such a certificate-Appeal-Held i n the 
present case a certificate under section 88-C was obtained behind the back of 
the tenant and without any notice to him-Held certificate was void ab initio. 
E 
Chanchalben v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, 12 Guj. Law Reporter 428 
and Jainabai v. Bakeji Bhan, 63 Born. Law Reporter 65, referred to. 
Krishnabai Ghule v. M'vruthe Ramchandra, [1983] 3 SCR 822, held 
inapplicable. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1328 of 
1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.90 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 3607 of 1982. 
G 
AM. Khanwilkar for the Appellant. 
V.B. Joshi for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
The appellant is the tenant of the land in dispute which is situated 
58 
G.B. PATIL v. S.B. VIBHUTE 
59 
in Taluka Walwa, district Sangli inthe State of Maharashtra. On the Tillers' A 
Day, i.e,, 1.4.1957, the appellant was the tenant in occupation of the lands 
in question. The landlord as of 1.4.1957 was a joint family of which the 
original respondent was a member. On 31.3.1958 a partition took place of 
the joint family and the lands in question came to the share of.the original 
respondent. 
B 
Thereafter, the original respondent applied for a certificate under 
Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the 
Act). It is the case of the appellant that no notice was given to him of this 
application under Section 88C nor was he aware of a certificate being 
granted under Section 88C in favour of the original respondent on C 
14.4.1959. 
In 1962, the original respondent made an application under Sec. 33B 
for obtaining possession of the land. In these proceedings under Sec. 33B, 
the appellant challenged the bona fide requirements of the original respon-
D 
dent for cultivating these lands personally. During the pendency of these 
proceedings the original respondent died and his heirs were brought on 
record; as a result a fresh enquiry was required to be made about the bona 
fide requirements of the heirs of the respondent under Sec. 33B. Before 
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the appellant contended that there was 
no valid certificate under Sec. 88C on the basis of which the respondent(s) 
could make an application under sec. 33B because, on the relevant date, 
namely, 1.4.1957, the original respondent was not the landlord of the land 
in question. Only the joint family which was the landlord on the relevant 
date, could have applied for a certificate under Sec. 88C. In the absence 
of any such application by the joint family, the appellant's rights as on 
1.4.1957 under Section 32-G cannot be now defeated by a subsequent 
certificate under Section 88C obtained by a person who was only a member 
E 
F 
of the joint family on the relevant date and who had subsequently acquired 
these lands under a partition which took place after the Tiller's day. The 
Revenue Tribunal has upheld this contention. The High Court, however, G 
in a writ petition filed by the respondents to challenge the findings of the 
Revenue Tribunal, held that the certificate under Sec. 88C cannot be 
examined. On the basis of this certificate, the respondents are entitled to 
succeed in their application under Sec. 33-B in the light of the findings 
given by the revenue authorities in their favour. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
The High Court was not right in coming to this conclusion. Under 
the scheme of the Act, a tenant becomes the deemed purchaser of the land 
on 1.4.1957. Under Sec. 88C, however, an exemption is granted to the lands 
of a small landlord whose l

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