LexLAXMINARAYAN DIPCHAND MAHESHWARI & ORS. versus MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
537
LAXMINARAYAN DIPCHAND MAHESHWARI & ORS.
v.
'MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
February 13, 1975
[1{. K. MATHEW AND P. K. GOSWAMI, J).]
Bombay Telfllncy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region)
Act
1958
ss.43(14A), 46(1) and 49A(1·)-Scopc o/-S.46, if protected by Art. 31A.
· •
Section 46 ( 1) of ~e Bombay Tt:nancy ~d Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Re.
glon) Act, 1958, prov1des that notw1thstandmg anything contained in Chapter Ill ·
(containing ss. 38 to 57) the OWJ}ership of nil lands held by tenants, which they
are entitled to purchase from the1r landlords under any of the provisions of that
chapter, shnll &~nd trnnsferred to and vest in such tenants on and from April 1.
t961. from ~vhtch date such te'}ants shal~ be deemed to be the full owners of such
C lands. Sectton 43 ( 14A) provides that 1f a tenant fails to exercise his right of
purchase under s. 41 etc. t~e land shall be deemed to be surrendered to the land·
lords; and s. 49A(l) prov1d~ ~at notwithstanding anything contained in ss..41
311d 46 etc., on .and. from Apnl 1. 1963 the ownership of all land held by 8 tenant
(being land whtch 1s not transferred to the tenant under s. 46 or which is not pur·
chased by him under ss. 41 and 50), shall vest in such tenant
The Agricultural Lands Tribunal took action under s. 46 read with s. 48 of
D the Act for fixing the price of the land in possession of the respondent who was
personally cultivating the land as a cultivating tenant under the appellant-land-
lord. The appellant contested the proceedings without success before the authori-
ties under the Act as well as in a writ petition in the High Court. In appeal tb ·
lhb Court, it was contended (1) that s. 49A is not applicable to the ·present case
as the opening non-obstante clause of that section makes no reference to s.
43(14A) while it specifically mentions ss. 41 and 46; (2) Since the tenant had not
exercised his right to plll'chase the land in question under s. 43(14A) the land shall
be deemed to have been surrendered to the appellant and no question of statutory
E transfer of ownership of the land would arise; and (3) Se.ction 46 is violative of
Arts. 14 and 19(1 )(f) of the Constitution and is not saved by Art. 31A.
F
. Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (l) Section 49A is no.t attracted in the instant case since that section
provides for ownershit> of.land which is. not transferred\to the tenant under s. 46
or which is not purchased by the tenant under s. 41 or 8. SO. The present case
deals with compulsory transfer of ·ownership· under· s!· 46.
[539H)
·
·
(2) Under. s. 46 the tenants became full owners of the land~ by opera~on
of law and there is a statutory vesting of the lands in them. 11us legal ':esting
by operation of s. 46 on and from April t, 1961, cannot be di~ested m tho .
a.)>sence of any clear provision under the Act. Section 43 (14A) lS a prospec-
hve Provision and was introduced in the Act by amendment on March .1. 1~2
and has no application. [S40A-D]
·
.
·
G
(3) S~on ~6 has achieved th~ twin purpose of extin~isbment of the rishl
· of the landlord tn the estate and conferment of the same nght u~ the tenant.
~nee that happens, there is, in one breath, extinguishment of the ngbt In favour
. 1-1
/
1~ State Mld the conferment of the said right in favour of the tenant .. A~lcle
rlA ts therefore clearly applicable and it cannot be contruned that there ts vtola-
•on of Arts. 14 and 19. [541A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURisDICTION: Civil Aooeal No. 2609 .of 1969.
~pPeal by Special Leave from the jridgment and order dat<:d the
~?t
1
h ~~ril, .1969 of the Bombay High Co~ (Nagpur BeQc~) · m spe-
a Ctvil Appln. No. 1039 of 1966.
W. S. BarUngay, Sheil Sethi and Ganpat Rai, for the appellants.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975) 3 S.C.it.
E. C; Agarwala, for respondent no: 2. ·
A.
M. C. Bhandare and~· P. Nayar,. for respondent No. 5.
The Judgment of the Court was d~livered by
OoSWAMI, J. This petition by special leave is directed agchinst tl:le
judgment of the Bombay High Court rejecting the appellant-landlords'
application .under articles 226 and 22 7 of the Constitution with regud
B
to a revenue matter under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultur~~ Lands
(Vidarbha :Region) ,A.ct, 1958 (briefly the Act). The second respon":'
dent (hereinafter the respondent) was the cultivating tenant .under the··
. . appellant-landlords.
It was never in dispute in any of the earllier pro-·
ceedings that the respondent waExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.