LexNAVINCHANDRA RAMANLAL versus KALIDAS BHUDARBHAI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • , ... • ,. 329 NAVINCHANDRA RAMANLAL v. KALIDAS BHUDA:RBHM AND ANR. Bebruary 2.1, ·1979 (P.N. SHINGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] • Bombay Tenancy & Agric1iltural Lands Act, "1956-Ss. 43C and 88(1) (b'J- Scope of. Sections 43C and 88 of the Bombay Tenancy and A,gricultural Lands Act, 1948 exempted _certain lands from .the qperation .of the _Act. Section 43C provided that nothing in s. 32 to s. 32R (both inclusive) and s. 43 shall apply C to lands in the "area within the limits" .of a Municipal Corporation constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1948. The Gujarat Amendment Act, 1965 substituted the words "areas -wliich .On the date of coming into force of the Amending Act, 1956 and within the limits of" for the words "areas within the limits of" occurring in the original section. Similarly s. 88(1) (b) conferred power on -the State Govei:nment to exempt land from the opera- tion of the provision of the Act which the State Government may, from time to B time, by notification in the official Gazette, specify as being reserved for non- agricultural or industrial development. The Amendment Act, 36 of 1965 engraftcd a proviso to cl. (b) of s. 88(1), providing that if after a notification in respect of any area specified in. th.e notification is issued under the said .clause, whether before or after the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agicultu:cal Lands Act, 1965 the limits of the area so specified are enlarg- ed on account of the addition of any other area thereto, then, merely by reason E of such addition the reservation as made by the notification so issued shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have applied to the area so added. The aprellant v;•as the owner of survey No. 165 situated within the revenue limits of village A.cher near Ahmedabad. For sometime prior to 1946 the respondent had been a tenant of this land. By virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 the respondent became a protected tenant and F continued to be so under the Tenancy Act, 1948. The Amendment Act of 1956 provided for the transfer of ownership of the land from the landlord to the tenant by operation of law. The day was styled as tillers' day. Under this section every tenant was deemed to have purchased from his landlord free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the tillers' day the land held by him as tenant. By virtue of this provision the tenant claimed himself to be the owner of the land G On August 9, 1956 the Government issued a notification specifying the area within the 1imits of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmednbad as being_ reserved for urban non-agricultural and industrial development. This notifica- tion was superseded by another notification dated the 14th February, 1957 by which the Government specified, amongst others, the areas within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad "8 being reserved for the above mentioned purpose. Subsequently the Government extended the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation by reason of which survey H B c D 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 s.c.R. No. 165 which was formerly outside the Municipal limits, was included within the area of the Municipal Corporation of AhmedaOOd as from May 30, 1959. In an inquiry by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for determining the purchase price of the land the appellant-landlord contended before the Tri- bunal that in view of s. 88(1)(b) read with the notification of Februnry 14, 1957 the land (survey No. 165) was exempt from the operation of the 1948 Act and that the inquiry should be dropped. This contention was negatived and the appeal by the landlord failed. In revision preferred by the landlord, the Revenue Tribunal was of the opinion that not merely the lands which were in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation area at the date of the notifi- cation would be exempted from the operation of the Tenancy Act but the exemption wou1d also extend to the lands brought within the Corporation area from time to time without any fresh notification for re~ervation. In the re~pondents-tenant5' writ petition the High Court held that the exemption would apply only to the lands included within the limits of the Municipal Corporation as on the date of the notification and in the absence of fresh reservation by a fresh notification the land included in the Mc.nici- pal area on extension of the limits of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.