SAHADU BALA BOTRE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. versus NAMDEO BAPUJI KERALA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 14-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAHADU BALA BOTRE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
v. 
NAMDEO BAPUJI KERALA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
FEBRU,~RY 14, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Jl] 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948: 
Sections 29(1), 63, 64, 84-A-Validation of sale deed-Held, specific 
C embargo created by second proviso to s.29 which is mandat01y and beneficial 
to the tenant-Refusing the grant of validation of the sale in favour of 
appellant well justified. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 563 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17/18.6.70 of the Bombay High 
Court in S.C.A. No. 1133 of 1964. 
'. 
A.S. Bhasme for the Appellants. 
E 
V.N. Ganpule, Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The only question in this appeal is whether the interpretation put by 
the High Court on second proviso to Section 84A of the Bombay Tenancy 
p 
and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 is correct? The appeal arise from the 
judgment dated June 17/18, 1970 of Bombay High Court made in SCA No. 
1133/64. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant had purchased along 
with another undivided interest in Survey No. 59 of a total extent of 106 
acres situated in Sadavadi Village, Taluka Mawal in Pune District in which 
G it is found as a fact that the respondent Namdeo Bapuji Kerala was the 
tenant. After unsuccessful attempt before Revenue Forums the appellant 
filed an application under Section 84A for validation of the sale deed which 
the appellant had. Though the Revenue forums found that the appellant 
and the respondent Sahadu Bala Batre and Namdeo Bapuji Kerala were· 
tenants in common, in Appeal No. 21/1957 by order dated February. 28, 
H 1958 it was held that Sahadu Bala Batre was not the tenant. That order 
. 640 
~ 
I 
_. 
SAHADU BALA B01RE v. NAMDEO BAPUJI KERALA 
641 
had become final. Thereby the respondent become the soie tenant of the A 
land. The question then is : whether validation of the sale could be 
granted? Section 84A reads thus : 
"84A. (1) A transfer of any land in contravention of section 63 or 
64 as it stood before the commencement of the Amending Act, 
1955, made after the 28th day of December, 1948 (when the 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, came into 
force) and before the 15th day of June, 1955, shall not be declared 
B 
to be invalid merely on the ground that such transfer was made in 
contravention of the said sections if the transferee pays to the State 
Government a penalty equal to one per cent of the consideration C 
or Rs. 100 whichever is less : . 
Provided that, if such transfer is made by the landlord in favour 
of the tenant in actual possession, the penalty leviable in respect 
thereof shall be one rupee: 
Provided further that if any such transfer is made by the 
landlord in favour of any person other than the tenant in actual 
possession, and such transfer is made either after the unlawful 
eviction of such tenant, or results in the eviction of the tenant in 
actual possession1 then such transfer shall not be deemed to be 
validated (unless such tenant has failed to apply for the possession 
of the land under sub-section (1) of section 29 within two years 
from the date of his eviction from the land). 
(2) On payment of such penalty, the· Mamlatdar shall issue a 
D 
E 
certificate to the transferee that such transfer is not invalid. 
F 
(3) Where the transferee fails to pay the penalty referred to in 
sub-section (1) within such period as may be prescribed, the 
transfer shall be de~lared by the Mamlatdar to be invalid and 
thereupon the provisions of sub-section (2) to (5) of Section 84C G 
shall apply." 
We are concerned with the second proviso in this case, the main part of 
sub-section (1) postulates that a transfer of any land in contravention of 
Section 63 or 64 as it stood before the commencement of 1955 Amending 
Act, made, after December 28, 1948 and before June 15, 1955, i.e., when H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the Amending Act was brought into force, shall not be declared to be 
invalid merely. on the ground that such transfer was made in contravention 
of Section 63 or 64 provided that the transferee pays to the Government a 
penalty equal to 1 % of the consideration ,or Rs. 100 whichever is less. 
Nonetheless the second proviso seeks to protect interest of the cultivating 
B tenant. It says that if such transfer is made by the landlord in favour of any 
person other than the tenant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.