KLSAN Y ASHWANT DHIRADE versus SONABAI BAPPU LOHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 10-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KlSAN Y ASHWANT DHIRADE 
A 
v. 
SONABAI BAPPU LOHAR AND ORS. 
APRIL 10, 2001 
[SYED SHAH _M:OHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.J 
B 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 
Ss.2(6) and 37(1)-Tenants claim/or restoration of possession of land-
Tenant handing over possession of land to landlord u/s 31-Widow of landlord C 
giving land on leasr after 11 years and about 11 months-Original tenant 
claiming restoration of possession 011 the ground that the land was leased 
out before expiry of statutory period of 12 years-Widow defending the 
restoration on the ground that being a widow she was entitled to cultivate 
the land peruonally, which includes through a tenant as provided in s.2(6)- D 
Held, as the widow remained and utilised the land for eleven years and about 
eleven months, there is justification in treating that she has committed no 
violation of twelve years embargo. contained in s.37. 
S.2(6)__:_Explanation1-Expression ~'to cultivate personally"-Held, in 
case of a widow or a minor, or a pers(>1iwh~ is subject to physical o; mental. E 
disability or a serving member of the armed forces. Cultivation of land on 
ones own account includes through servants o/1 labourer or through tenants-
The respondent is a widow and had lost her son also-Even though she gave 
the land on lease, she will be deemed to be cultivating the land personally 
within the meaning of the said phrase. 
S.2(6)-Explanation II-Tenant referred to if! Explanation II is not the 
tenant who had surrendered the possession ·of land under s. 31. 
Words and Phrases: 
"To cultivate personally"-lijeaning of 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3024 of 
1997. 
. 
From the Judgment and Order dated i3.6.94 of the Bombay High Court 
in WP. No. 3099 ofl989. 
95 
F 
G 
H 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Ms. Promila, Ms. Anuradha Rustogi and T. Raja for the Appellant. 
.. ' 
' 
. 
Manoj Swamp for the Respondents. 
i. 
The following Order of the Court wad delivered : 
B 
The appellant is the dissatisfied tenant who parted with the possession 
of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 250, measuring_ acres 13 guntas 5 
situated at Belpimpaltaon Taluq, Newasa, Distt. Ahmednagar. He is in appeal 
before us, by special leave, against the judgment and order dated June 23, 
1994 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3099 of 
1989 which was initially filed before the Bombay Bench as Writ Petition No. 
y 
c 3742 of 1981 but was later transferred to the Aurangabad Bench and 
renumbered. 
The facts ielevant for disposal of this appeal may be noted in brief. The 
respondent is the widow of late Bapu Lobar who was the landlord of the said 
D 
land. The case of the appellant before the Tenancy Awal Karkun was that the 
possession of the said land was handed over to the husband of the respondent 
by him in proceediJ!.gs initiated under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy & · 
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that 
,.. 
before the expiry of the statutory period of twelve years she had leased it out 
to one Damu Kalu.Suryavanshi on March 21, 1969, therefore, he was entitled 
E to restoratiort of possession. The respondent defended the application on 
two grounds; first, that she, being a widow, is entitled to cultivate the land 
personally which includes through a tenantas provided in Section 2(6) of the 
Act and there is no scope to invoke Section 37 so as to give the appellant 
right to claim restoration of possession; secondly, it was pleaded that he had 
F 
surrendered the land under Section 15 of the Act in which case the provisions 
of Section 37 of the Act would not be attracted and the question of restoration 
of possession did not arise. 
The Tenancy Awal Karkun found that the possession of the land was 
handed over to the husband of the respondent in proceedings initiated by 
G him under Section 31 of the Act as per the order of the Mamlatdar dated May 
6, 1957. He also found that in view of subsequent leasing out of the land by 
>= 
the respondent before twelve years from the date of taking possession of the 
land, the appeilant became entitled to resume the land. Appeal against the 
said order of the Tenancy Awai Karkun before the Sub-Divisional Officer 
having been u~succ~ssful, the respondept ·filed a ~evision before the 
H Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It was held by the Tribunal; (i) the surrender 
. K. Y. DHIRADE v. SONABAI BAPPU LO HAR 
97 
pleaded u~der Section·

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