SUDAM GANPAT KUTWAL P.A. HOLDER OF SHANKAR SITARAM BHOSLE versus SHEVANTABAI TUKARAM GULUMKAR (DEAD) BY LR MARUTI SHANKAR PACHPUTE

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 682 · Decided: 18-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUDAM GANPAT KUTWAL P.A. HOLDER OF SHANKAR SITARAM 
BHOSLE 
B 
c 
v. 
SHEVANTABAI TUKARAM GULUMKAR (DEAD) BY LR MARUTI 
SHANKAR PACHPUTE 
AUGUST I 8, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA VAT AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Land Tenancy Laws: 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 
Section 31 read with Section 32F-Termination of tenancy-Right of 
landlord-Deemed purchase-Right of tenant where landlady is a widow--
D Issue of notice of purchase-Requirement of-A tenant was inducted in an 
agriculwral land and was cultivating the same persona//y--Though the 
tenant was registered as the tenant of the said land, his right to purchase 
under the deemed purchase under S. 32 was postponed as the landlady was 
a widow--The landlady filed an application under S. 31 read with S. 29 
seeking possession of the land in the occupation of the tenant on the grounrf 
E that she required the land for her personal cultivation-Possession of half 
of the land was delivered to the landlady-Tenant continued in possession 
of the remaining half portion-Subsequently, landlady sold portion of the 
land which she got to others under different sale deeds-After the death of 
the landlady, the name of her sister was entered as her successor-in-title in 
F the record of rights-The said sister filed an application under S. 32P read 
with S. 32F for a declaration that the deemed statlllory purchase by the 
tenant he declared as void and inefjective for future to issue notice under Sec. 
32-F(/A)-The Agricultural Land Tribunal allowed the application as the 
tenant had failed to issue a notice of purchase-High Court affirmed the said 
decision--Currectness of-Held: As the landlady had exercised her right to 
G take possession for personal cultivation under S. 31 (/) during her lifetime 
and got possession of half of the land no right survived under S. 31 (3) to 
her or her successor-in-title lo seek the remaining land having regard to the 
bar contained in S. 3/C-Therefore, there was no need to issue notice of 
intimation of purchase with 32-F(J A)-Hence, failure to do so did not result 
H 
682 
S.G. KUTWAL P.A. HOLDER OF S.S. BHOSLE v. S.T. GULUMKAR (DEAD\ BY LR MARUTI SHANKAR 
683 
in forfeiture of the tenant's right to the said land or right to purchase the A 
said land under theAct-High Court's judgment set aside-Position emerging 
from Sections 31, 32F and 32G, where the landlord is a widow stated. 
The appellant was inducted as the tenant of an agricultural land and 
was cultivating the same personally. Though the appellant was registered as 
the tenant of the said land, his right to purchase under the deemed purchase B 
under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 
was postponed as the landlady was a widow. The landlady filed an application 
under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Act seeking possession of the 
land in the occupation of the appellant-tenant on the ground that she required 
the land for her personal cultivation. Possession of half of the land was C 
delivered to the landlady and the appellant continued in possession of the 
remaining half portion. The landlady sold portion of the land which she got 
for her personal cultivation to others under different sale deeds. 
Thereafter, the landlady filed tenancy case seeking possession of the 
remaining half of the land on the gr:iund that the appellant had committed D 
certain defaults. The Mamlatdar rejected the said petition. After the death of 
the landlady, the name of her sister was entered as her successor-in-title in 
the record of rights. 
The said sister filed an application under Section 32P read with Section 
32F of the Act for a declaration that the deemed statutory purchase by the E 
tenant be declared as void and ineffective, as the tenant had failed to fulfil the 
mandatory requirement of giving a notice of intimation of purchase within 
the time stipulated under Section 32F(IA) of the Act. The Agricultural Land 
Tribunal allowed the application. The High Court dismissed the writ petition 
filed by the appellant-tenant. Hence the appeal. 
F 
The following questions arose before the Court:-
I. Whether it was necessary for the tenant to issue a notice of intimation 
of purchase under Section 32F(1A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural 
Lands Act, 1948 to the successor-in-title of the landlady in regard to the half G 
portion retained by him under Section 318(1) read with Section 31(1)? 
(688-G, H( 
2. Whether the failure to do so resulted in forf

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