JOGIBHAI MANGALBHAI TANDEL ETC. versus THE MAMLATDAR AND AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNAL, PARDL AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 20-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JOGIBHAI MANGALBHAI TANDEL ETC. 
v. 
THE MAMLATDAR AND AGRICULTURAL 
LAND TRIBUNAL, PARDl AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 : 
A 
B 
S.63--Restriction on purchase of agricultural land by persons other than C 
who reside within certain parameters prescribed-Held not violative of the 
Fundamental Right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of 
India 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Art. 19(1)(e)-Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-
Section 6~Whether violative of-Held : No. 
D 
The appellants purchased some lands without obtaining permission 
from the Mamlatdar as required under Section 63 of Bombay Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Therefore proceedings were initiated for E 
ejecting them from lands. The appellants filed Special Civil Applications 
which were dismissed by the High Court. Hence these appeals. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that Section 63 of the 
Act did not contemplate prior permission; that even after the· purchase one 
can seek permission and validation of the proceedings and therefore the 
order of the High Court was in contravention of the fundamental right 
guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. On a conjoint and harmonious reading of s.63 of the G 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the definitions, it 
is seen that the purpose of the Act is an agrarian reform restricting 
holding of the land by the agriculturist who cultivates the land in the 
manner defined under the Act. He is also entitled to own the land or 
cultivate on lease in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But as a H 
733 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A condition to purchase the land, s.63 prescribed a restriction that he should 
be an aiµiculturist and should hold the land within the village as per the 
village accounts under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and also in a 
compact block either at a single or at different places, but within S miles 
from the village in which the principal lands are situated. Even a per-
B manent resident of Gujarat State has been prohibited from purchasing the 
lands outside the village within a radius of five miles from the village. The 
reason appears to be to discourage concentration of large holdings in the 
hands or feW individuals and distribution of the material resources of the 
community to subserve the common good as envisaged under Art. 39(d) of 
the Constitution. [737-B to D] 
c 
2; Being an agrarian reform to confer the right to cultivation of the 
lands to the agriculturist with a view to improving the economic and social 
conditions of the peasants and to ensure the full and efficient use of the 
· land for agriculture, the Act came to be made and as a part of its scheme, 
restriction on the holding and purchase also has been imposed. It is a 
D · reasonable restriction within the meaning of clauses 2, S and 6 of Art. 19 
conformable to the right of the agriculturist to hold the land for personal 
cultivation within the limits prescribed under the Statute. Thus, there is 
, no contravention of the fundamental rights of any citizens much less the 
citizens in the State of Gujarat other than those wJio reside within the 
E parameters prescribed under the Act. (737-D, E, F] · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1886-
1888 of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.88 of the Gujarat High 
F 
Court in S.C.A. No. 666 & 655 of 1979. 
V.A. Bobde and P.D. Sharma for the Appellants. 
C. Badri Nath Babu and Anip Sachthey for the Respondents. 
G 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
These three appeals raise comm.on question of law of some impor-
tance as regards the agrarian reforms in the State of Gujarat. The facts in 
C.A. No. 1886/88 are sufficient for disposal of these appeals. 
H 
The appellant had purchased 7 acres, 9 gunthas of land in Moria 
::: 
J.M. TANDEL v. MAMLAIDAR AND AGRL. LAND TBL. 
735 
Village of Pardi Taluk, District Valsad of State of Gujarat on November A 
rl, 1967 without obtaining permission from the Mamlatdar as required 
under s.63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for 
short 'the Act'. Proceedings were initiated for his ejectment from the land 
for purchase made contrary to s.63 which went against him. Consequently 
he filed Special Civil Appln. No. 653/79. The High Court by 

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