PANDURANG DNYANOBA LAD versus DADA RAMA METHE & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 24-02-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
493 
PANDURANG DNYANOBA LAD 
v. 
DADA RAMA METHE & ORS. 
February 24, 1976 
[Y, V. CHANDRACHUD, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1948-Section 320(6)-32(0) 
-Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955-
Secs. 6. 7, 8 9. 28-Whether on abolition of Inams the relationship of landlord 
and tenant comes to an end-Whether tenants right to purchase land 
under 
tenancy act affected by abolition act. 
The appellant owned a land which was held for the perfonnance of mis· 
A 
B 
cellaneous inferior services and was classified as a Huzur Sanadi Inam land. 
C 
The respondents were in possession of the land as tenants and were declared 
as purchasers under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 
The Tenancy Act provides by section 32 that on 1st April, 1957, every tenant 
subject to certain conditions shall be deemed to have purchased from . his 
landlord the land held by him as a tenant. The Bombay Legislature passed 
the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act of 
1955. The appellant contended that in view of the provisions of the Abolition 
Act, the relationship of landlord and tenant 
cam~e to an end between the 
appelJant and the respondents and that, therefore, respondents have no right 
D 
to purchase the land. The contention of the appellant was negatived by the 
AJrricultural Lands Tribunal which was confirmed in appeal by the Special 
Deputy Collector and in revision by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. A 
wril petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of Bombay was summarily 
dismissed. 
Dismissing the appeal by Special Leave, 
HELD : 1. By section 4 of the Abolition Act, all alienations in the Merged 
E 
Territories were abolished with effect from the appointed date. Sections 6, 7, 
8 and 9 of the Abolition Act provide for the grant of occupancy rights ln 
respect of the erstwhile lnam Lands. There is no provision in that Act by 
virtue of which the relationship of landlord and tenant between the ex~Inamdar 
and his tenant would stand eXtinguished. 
On the contrary, section 28 provides 
that nothing contained in the Act shall in any way be deemed to effect the 
application of any of the provisions of the Tenancy Act to any alienated land 
or the mutual rights and obligations of a landlord and his tenants_ save in so 
F 
far a.11 the said provisions are in any way inconsistent with the express provisions 
of the Act. The provisions of the Tenancy Act contained in section 32 are 
in no way inconsistent with any of the express provisions of the 
Abolition 
Act. [495-A, B.C, & DJ 
2. Section 32(0) of the Tenancy Act applies only to tenancies created 
after the tiller's day. 
[495E] 
3. The object of the Abolition Act was the elimination of Tnamdan es 
G 
intermediaries and not the eviction of the tillers of the soil. [495GJ 
4. Section 32G(6) of the Tenancy Act shows that nothing contained 
in 
the Aholition Act can affect the tenant's right of purchase under sectian 32, 
even if anv land is regranted to the holder under the Abolition Act on 
condition that_ it was not transferable. 
[496A-BJ 
ClVIJ. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appea:l No. 475 of 1973. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 26-4-1972 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application 
No. 165 of 1972) 
\ 7 -L522 SCI/76 
H 
494· 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 3 s.c.R. 
A 
S. B. Wad and M. S. Ganesh. for the appellant. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
P. H. Parekh, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CIIANDRACHUD, J. 
The appellant owned a land, Survey No. 72, 
at Shiroli in the district of Kolhapur. 
The land was held by the 
appellant for the performance of miscellaneous inferior services and 
was classified as a Huzur Sanadi Inam land. Respondents have been 
in possession of a portion of the land as tenants and w~rc declared 
as purchasers under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 
LXVH of 1948, (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act). Consequent 
upon the declaration, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Hatkanagale, 
fixed the price of the land under section 32G of the Tenancy Act. 
That decision was confirmed in appeal by the Special Deputy Co!lector, 
Kulhapur. and in revision by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The 
appellant filed a petition in the Bombay High Court under article 227 
of the Constitution to challenge the decision of the Revenue Tribunal 
but that petition
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.