PARVATI & ORS. versus FATEHSINHRAO PRATAPSINHRAO GAEKWAD

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 793 · Decided: 18-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
PARVATI & ORS. 
v. 
FATEHSINHRAO PRATAPSJNHRAO G,AEKWAD 
SEPTEMBER 18, 1986 
IA.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.J 
Bombay Tenancy and.Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: ss. 88( l)(b). 
89(2)(b) and 89A-Notification reserving lands within municipal limits 
-of a clly for non-agricultural or industrial development-Effect oj. 
When Baroda became Borough Municipality on Isl May 1950, the · 
provisions of the Bombay Tenancy A:ct, 1939 were applicable to the 
lands situated within its municipal limits. That Act was repealed by the 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which was made 
applicable to the Baroda Municipality with effect from August I, 1956 
by the Bombay Tenancy .and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 
1955 (Bombay Act No. XIII of 1956). Section 88( l)(b) ·of the 1948 
Act, as substituted bys. 48 of the Act of 1956, provided that nothing in 
the Act shall apply to any area which the State Government may, by 
notification in the official gazette, specify as being reserved for non-
agricultural or ind_ustrial development. Section 89(2)(b) further laid 
down that nothing in that Act or. any repeal effected thereby, shall 
affect or be deemed to affect, any right, title, interest, obligation or 
liability already acquired, accrued or incurred before the commence-
ment of this Act. Section 89A recited that notwithstanding the repeal of 
the 1939 Act, the provisions of s~. 3, 3A and 4 or that Act, as set out in 
Schedule I to the 1948 Act, shall always be deemed to be extendec\ to 
and to be in force in those areas on the dates on which the 1948 Act was 
extended to and brought into force. 
The Government by a notification dated May 21, 1958 issued 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
under s. 88(l)(b) of the 1948 Act reserved the lands within the 
G 
municipal limits of the city of Baroda for non-agricultural and in-
dustrial development. 
Appellant's husband-defendant, took possession of certain lands 
situated in the city of Baroda, from the respondent-trustee of a temple 
for a period of three years from 1956 to 1958 at an annual rent of 
793 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
·G 
H 
794 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11986] 3 S.C.R. 
Rs.2225 by executing a Kabuliyat dated June 2, 1956, which was not 
registered. As he fell into arrears of rent for the said years, the 
respondent-plaintiff filed a snit for its recovery. The defence was that 
the snit was not maintainable in a civil court inasmuch as even though 
the Tenancy Act ceased to apply on the issue of the notification under s. 
88(1)(b) in respect of lands within the municipal limits of the city of 
Baroda, yet the rights of the tenant in respect of the snit land, which 
had accrued before the said notification, subsisted. 
The trial court held that the Tenancy Act was applicable to the 
case and since the Mamlatdar had already determined the reasonable 
rent in respect of the lands in question, the civil court was not 
competent to determine the same once again. The appeal preferred was 
dismissed by the District Judge. On further appeal, the High Court held 
that in view of the notification issued under s. 88(l)(b) of the said Act 
the provisions of the Tenancy Act will not apply retrospectively and 
directed the trial court to redetermine the issue. On receipt of the 
findings of the trial court, the High Court allowed the second appeal, 
setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 
In the Appeal by special Leave to this Court it was contended for 
the appellant that in view of the provisions of s. 89(2)(b) the right of the 
defendant to pay rent as determined by the Mamlatdar nnd er ss. 8 and 
9 of the 1948 Act was not affected by the retrospective effect given to the 
provisions of s. 88 of the Act. 
Dismissing the Appeal, the Court, 
HELD: The specific provision in s. 89(2)(b) of the Bombay 
Tenancy and Agricnltnral Lands Act, 1948 to the effect that nothing in 
the Act or any repeal affected thereby shall, save as expressly provided 
therein, affect or be deemed to affect any right, title, interest, ob-
ligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred before the 
commencement of the Act, read with the specific provision of s. 88(I)(b) 
that on issue of a notification specifying areas reserved for non· 
agricultural or industrial development the provisions of the Act shall 
not apply to the lands so notified, make it apparent that the Act will not 
be applicable to the lands notified. [799B; D-El 
The issuance of the notification dated 2 lst May, 1958

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