MUGAJI LAXMAN PADULE THROUGH HIS HEIRS versus TRIMBAK WASUDEO KULKARNI & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 18-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUGAJI LAXMAN PADULE THROUGH HIS HEIRS 
v. 
TRIMBAK WASUDEO KULKARNI & ORS. 
JANUARY 18, 1989 
B 
ILALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
,>--
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Sections 
32A, 32G, 32P, 63 and 84C-Purchase of land by person who holds 
/ii 
land in excess of ceiling area-Validity of such purchase. 
)? 
c 
The appellants are the heirs of one A who was the tenant of the 
land in question for abont three decades before the Bombay Tenancy 
and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 was enacted. Though be was entitled 'I 
to purchase the land on satisfaction of certain conditions, it was admit-
led before the authorities that he did not satisfy the conditions. The 
landlords claimecl possession of the land. A was already possessed of ' 
D land beyond the ceiling area prescribed by Sec. 32A of the Act and he, 
therefore, did not claim to have purchased the land in accordance with 
the provisions of the Act. Since in such cases. Sec. 32P provides that the 
former tenant would be summarily evicted and the land would be sur-
)· 
rendered to the landlord, the land in question went to the landlords. _ 
The appellants claimed that on a partition in the family of the landlords 
E the land in question was allotted to some of the respondents and A 
purchased the same for Rs. 3000 on 3.6.1960. It was contended that the 
land-holding of A was within the ceiling area following the partition in -
1959 between him and his sons. 
,,,__
Suppressing the sale of the land and without impleading the l 
F appellants, the respondents moved the authorities in 1963 for recognis-
ing their claim. The Agricultural Land Tribunal and the Additional 
Mamlatdar npheld the claim of the respondents, relying on an enquiry 
under Section 32G, wherein the right of A as a tenant was negatived. 
The appellants filed an appeal before the collector, who remanded the 
matter to the Mamlatdar. The Additional Mamlatdar observed that 
G since the tenant had purchased the land from the landlords, the pro-
ceeding was fit to be dropped and it would be appropriate to deal with 
;i. 
the case under Section 84C which provided holding of an enquiry to 
decide the validity of the transfer. After such enquiry the Agricultural 
Lands Tribunal held that the purchase made on 3.6.1960 .by A was. 
lawful and upheld the claim of the appellants. This was confirmed on 
H appeal and one of the respondents filed a revision application before the 
238 
M.L. PADULE v. T.W. KULKARNI [SHARMA, J.] 
239 
Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the land owned by A did not 
belong to the joint family and his sons had no share therein and so the 
alleged partition could not be accepted or recognised. And in 1960, A 
was possessed of land beyond the ceiling area and was not entitled to 
purchase further land from respondents. The appellant moved the High 
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected 
the petition. This appeal, by Special Leave, is against the High Court's 
Judgment. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: The ban on transfers which may affect the ceiling law is 
more severe under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 
1948. Sec. 63 directs that no sale of land shall be valid in favour of a 
person who will, after such sale, hold land exceeding two-thirds of the 
ceiling area determined under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands 
(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The fact that on the death of A in 1962 
A 
B 
c 
his earlier holdings were inherited by his heirs and the respective hold-
ings, therefore, came below the ceiling area, is immaterial because the 
D 
disputed land was purchased by A himself in 1960. It has to be 
remembered that, as has been held by the Revenue Tribunal, the 
other lands' exclusively belonged to A and exceeded the ceiling area. 
The sale on 3.6.1960 must, therefore, be held to be illegal and 
inoperative. [241G-H; 242A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 950 
(N) of 1973. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.1972 of the Bombay 
High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2826 of 1969. 
Pinaki Misra, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the 
Appellants. 
V .N. Gan pule and V .D. Khanna for the Respondents. 
E 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
SHARMA, J. The subject matter of this appeal is 13.30 acres of 
land in Sholapur District, within the State of Maharashtra. The appel-
lants are the heirs of one Mugaji Laxman Padule, who was the tenant 
of the land for about 3 decades b

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