LexTRIBHOV AND AS HARIBHAI TAMBOLI versus GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
:A B TRIBHOV AND AS HARIBHAI TAMBOLI v. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. MAY 10, 1991 [KULDil> SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948--Section 32( I), 8/J( 1) (b)-Statutory rii:ht of 'deemed purchaser'-Whether arises. I The appellant took on lease some agricultural lands from one >- "°" C Viswas Rao and by operation of Section 32( 1) of the Bombay Tenancy and .°Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948, which was applicable to the lease, be became a deemed purchaser from tillers' day i.e. 1.4.1957. Sini:e the landlord was insane, the right to purchase was statµtorily deferred under section 32-F till date of its cessation or one year after D death. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 88(l)(b) of the Act, certaln lands including those of the appellant's lease-bold lands were reserved for industrial purpose; thereby making sectioos 1 to 87 of the Act inapplicable to the exempted area. During the subsistence of ·:r ~ disability of the landlord, his son Vasant Rao sold the land to the respondent under registered sale deed. Visbwas Rao died in September 1965. The appellant became entitled to purchase the land on and from E August 19, 1966. He therefore flied an application before Mamlatdar to '1x the price. He fixed on enquiry at Rs.4,925/65 P. which was paid by the appellant. In the enquiry, the respondent contended that he purchased the property from Vasantrao, son of the landlord and by nperation of the second proviso to Section 88( l)(b), the lands stood ~xempted from the operation of Sections 1 to 87 of the Act. So the F Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to decide the price of the land. The appellant's contention was that Vasantrao had no right to sell the lands during the life time of his father, the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family. The sale was invalid and did not bind him. He had acquired statutory right of 'deemed purchaser' and its exemption under section 88( l)(h) did not divest his statutory right. The Mamlatdar accepted the appel- G !ant's _c.!lnte11tron and allowe_d the _pet_itlon. On~appeal to the Collector and revision to the Revenue Tribunal, the decision of Mamlatdar was reversed. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal by the appellant, after obtaining special leave. On the question:...:..whether the operation of the ~nd l'roviso to H Section 88(1)(b) of the tenancy Act, 1948 has retrospe.ctive effect depriv- ing the appellant of the statutory right? 802 • T.H. TAMBOLI v. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL 803 Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: Section 88 of the Act empowers the government to exempt certain other lands from the purview of Sections 1 to 87 of the Act. The State Governments exercised their power from time to time under Section 88( l)(b) and issued notification and published in the official Gazette specifying certain areas as being reserved for non-agricultural or indnstrial development i.e., urban development. [ 806C-D I If any land in the newly added area has been transferred or acquired between the date of the notification issued under f"irst proviso and October 29, 1964, such transfer or acquisition ofland shall have the effect as if it was made in an area to which the main part of the proviso and Section 88( l)(b) would apply. The necessary consequence would be that the provisions of Sections 1 to 87 shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have applied to such added area. It is Implicit that such transfer or acquisition made, to bring within the net of second proviso, must be valid and bona fide one and not colourable, fraudulent, ficti- tiou> or nominal. [809G-8JOB] In the instant case. since Vasantrao did not obtain any order frorn the competent court nnder the Lunacy Act to have him appointed as Manager of the joint family to alienate the property, the sale .is per se illegal, The sale, therefore, appears to be to defeat the statutory right of the appellant. The rig1>ur of the second proviso to Section 88(l)(b) is thus inapplicable. Thereby the right and interest as deemed purchaser acquired by the appellant has not been affected by subsequent notifica- tion issued under section 88(1)(b). [811F-G] Sukharam@ Bapusaheb Narayan Sanos & Anr. v. Manikchand Motichand Shah & Anr., [1962] 2 S.C.R. 59; Mohan/al Chunila/ Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli, [ 1963] 2 S.C.R. 707; Sidram Narsappa Kamble v. Sholapur Borough Muncip
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.