TATOBA BHAU SAVAGAVE (D) BY LRS. AND ANR. versus VASANTRAO DHINIRAJ DESHPANDE AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 05-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
.. 1 
TATOBA BHAU SAVAGAVE (D) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
VASANTRAO DHINIRAJ DESHPANDE AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 5, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Land Laws: 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Section 43-1 B-
Calculation of ceiling area of land of landlord and resumption of.land from 
tenants mi termination o.f tenancy-Contention by petitioners that there was no 
partition o_f joint family lands o.f respondent-Inclusion of land belonging to 
respondent lying in another State for calculating ceiling area-Held, on facts 
and.findings by Revenue authorities as confimied by High Court, partition o.f 
joint family by metes and bounds already e.ffected-Same po"int cannot be 
agitated by applying 'principle o.f issue estoppel '-Land lying in another State 
cannot be included-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
c 
D 
Reading the provisions o.f a statute-Application o.f Directive principles 
of State Policy-Held, cannot be applied iii reading the provisions o.f the Act 
E 
which the legislature has not provided either expressly or by necessary 
implication-Constitution o.f India, 1950-Articles 38, 39(b) and (c). 
Respondent~landlord, a member of the Armed Forces, filed a tenancy 
case before Collector under Section 43-IB of the Bombay Tenancy and 
· Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for resumption on land from petitioners-
teitants to the extent of 1/2 share in Survey No. 98 and 2/3rd share in 
Survey No. 99. The Collector dismissed the tenancy case as not maintainable •. 
In appeal, Additional Commissioner held that the tenancy case was 
maintainable before the Collector on the ground that the partition of ttie 
joint family· took place in 1944 but confined resumption of land tO I/3rd. 
share in Survey No. 99. The order of the Additionai Commissioner was 
affirmed by High Court and the matter was remanded back to the Collector 
F 
G 
for calculating the total land held by the respondent and the extent of land 
available for resumption from the petitioners. The Collector, for calculation 
purposes, did not include the land held by the respondent in the State of 
H 
609 
A 
B 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
Karnataka and considered only the land held in the area of Bombay and 
decided that the respondent was entitled· to resume possession of l/3rd . 
share in Survey No. 99 froin the petitioners. '.fhe order of the Collector was 
confirmed by the Commissioner and the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the petitioners contended that no partition · 
took place of the joint family lands of the respondent by metes and bounds; 
that the findings of the High Court in the order of remand can be challenged; 
and that having regard to the Directive Principles of State P9licy contained 
in the Constitution of India, the land held by the respondent in the State of 
Karnataka must also be included in calculating the total holding of the 
C 
land under the Act. 
The respondent contended that the issue relating to the partition of 
. the joint family property was already confirmed by the High Court in its 
order of remand and the same cannot be permitted to be re~opened; and 
-
that the land held by the first re~pondent outside the Bombay area cannot 
~ 
D 
be taken into account for determining totai land held by him under the 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1:1. The question of partition of lands of the joint family was 
found against the petitioners in the fir~t round of litigation by the. Revenue 
Authorities. High Court held that, by. virtue of partition in 1944, the 
respondent did not get any share in Survey No. 98 while his brothers got 1/ 
3rd share each in Survey No, 99. The status of the joint family had come to 
an end and the shar~s of th~ members of the erstwI:tile joint family had 
been _defined. Furth~r, the High Court upheld the order of the Additional 
fomm.issioner that the respondent was entitled to apply under Section 43-
lB of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for possession 
~ 
• 
• 
• 
T 
-
of the 1/3rd share in Survey No. 99. Thus, having confirmed the findings 
. 
' 
recorded by the Revenqe Authorities, the case was remanded.back to the 
Collect~r for. determination ~f the. total land held by the first r~spondent 
.and the extent of the land available for res~mption .. The petitioners are 
now ~arred from agitating the same p~int by principle of 'issue est!lppel' o 
Secondly, when the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.