KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. versus MURALIDHAR (D) & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 935 · Decided: 19-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 935 : 2023 INSC 939
935
CASE DETAILS
KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. 
v.
MURALIDHAR (D) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11104 of 2014)
OCTOBER 19, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.] 
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed 
in ordering remand of the matter for examination of afresh bonafi de 
requirement of the heirs of the landlord for personal cultivation, in light of 
the changed circumstances-death of landlord; and whether the holding of 
the landlord exceeds one economic holding and whether the landlord earns 
his livelihood principally by agriculture or by agricultural labour.
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – s. 43A – 
Application under – Dispute between the legal heirs of the original 
landlord and the tenants of leased lands – Survey No. 291 leased 
for sugarcane cultivation, while the other Survey leased for general 
cultivation, for 13 years – Expiration of lease period – Issuance of notice 
as regards Survey No. 291 by the landlord to terminate the tenancy for 
personal cultivation, however possession not vacated – Proceedings for 
resumption of lands by the landlord – Original authority directed the 
restoration of 22 acres of the suit land to the landlord, based on the 
premise that both parties had an equal area for personal cultivation 
– Said fi nding upheld by the appellate authority but modifi ed the 
restored land to 17 acres 17 guntas – Thereafter, in Revision, the case 
was remanded – High Court also ordered remand of the matter for 
examination afresh of the bonafi de requirement of the heirs of the 
landlord for personal cultivation – Correctness:
Held: Holding of the landlord is 13 acres of jirayat land – Only such 
land which a person holds (is in possession) as an owner or tenant, must be 
taken into account – Land leased to the tenants cannot be said to be held 
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
by the landlord either as an owner, or as a tenant – s. 6 provides that one 
unit of economic holding in the context of jirayat land is equivalent to a 
holding of 16 acres – Thus, the holding of the landlord cannot be said to be 
in excess of one unit of economic holding – Original authority held that the 
landlord’s principal source of income is from agriculture, which was upheld 
by the appellate authority and the revisional authority – As per s. 33(B)(5)
(b), the landlord’s entitlement to terminate tenancy and recover possession 
of land leased is only to the extent ‘of so much thereof as would result in 
both the landlord and the tenant holding thereafter in the total an equal 
area for personal cultivation’ – Original authority and appellate authority 
disagreed on the extent of land to be resumed to the landlord – In deciding the 
extent of land to be restored, the Original authority was correct in applying 
the provision contained in s. 33B(5)(b) but erred in its interpretation and 
application – Appellate authority could not have applied s. 31B since the 
application of s. 31B stands excluded by s. 43A and the amended notifi cation 
– Further, from the evidence on record, the landlord has 13 acres of jirayat 
land, which he holds as owner – Litigation having been pending for nearly 
50 years – Relegating the parties to the authorities would add acrimony 
between the parties, as such the formula prescribed u/s.33B(5)(b) is applied 
to allocate the respective shares of the parties – Also, the High Court erred 
in remanding the case by considering, events which occurred subsequent 
to the date of fi ling of the petition – It was unnecessary for the revisional 
authority to remand the case – Impugned order passed by the High Court 
set aside – Legal heirs of original landlord entitled to 8.34 Acres in Survey 
No.291. [Para 24-31]
Interpretation of statutes – Interpretation of phrase ‘economic 
holding’ in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 
– Importing of the defi nition of ‘to hold land’ from the Maharashtra 
Land Revenue Code, 1966:
Held: Preamble in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 
suggests that the object of the enactment was ‘to unify and amend the law 
relating to land and land revenue in the State of Maharashtra – The Act 
was brought in with the object of amending ‘the law relating to tenancies 
of agricultural lands and to make certain other provisions in regard to those 
lands’ – Under several provisions of the Act, reference is required to be made 
937
to the Code – Provisions contain

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