VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1273 · Decided: 14-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1273
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
v.
ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11774 of 2018)
DECEMBER 14, 2018
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – s.32 as
amended by Act 15 of 1957  and ss.32F, 32G – Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969 – s.32(1)F(a) –
One ‘B’ was the landlord of the suit property – ‘B’ expired leaving
behind his widow as his legal heir and representative – Predecessor
of the appellants were tenants of ‘B’ prior to 1956-57 i.e. prior to
01.04.1957 (Tillers’ Day) – Proceedings for declaring the appellants
as purchaser u/s.32G were initiated against the landlady, since,
she was a widow, the proceedings were suspended during her
lifetime – Landlady expired on 07.05.1999, she had executed her
last Will in favour of respondent no.1 – In 2008, appellants came to
know that landlady had expired, they filed an application before
Addl. Tahsildar for fixing purchase price of the suit property u/
s.32G of the 1948 Act, which was allowed – However, Sub-
Divisional Officer, held that appellant ought to have issued notice
u/s.32F within the time as prescribed and no notice having been
issued within the time as prescribed, the appellants had lost right of
purchase – Order was confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal – Writ
petition filed against the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed –
On appeal, held: The ratio of Supreme Court judgments in Appa
Narsappa Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan
cases support the respondents that the appellants had not exercised
their right to purchase u/s.32F(1) r/w. (1A) within the time prescribed,
thus, the right of purchase of the tenant was lost – However,
amendment in s.32(1)F(a) added by the 1969 Act expressly covered
a case of landlord who was minor and has attained majority –
Intimation by a minor landlord who has attained majority has been
made a statutory obligation of the landlord so that tenant may
exercise his right of purchase – The other two categories i.e. widow
or a person subject to mental or physical disability have not been
expressly included in amendment Act 1969 – The same benefit needs
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1273
1273
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1274                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
to be extended in other two categories – Further, the judgments in
three cases mentioned were rendered by the two-Judge Benches in
which cases the amendment made by 1969 Act were neither raised
or considered – Thus, ratio laid down in these judgments needs to
be reconsidered and explained – Following questions referred to
larger Bench for consideration – (i) Whether the object and purpose
of amendment made in Section 32F(1)(a) by Amendment Act of 1969
is also relevant and applicable for exercise of right to purchase by
a tenant of landlord who was widow or suffering from mental and
physical disability on Tillers’ Day; (ii) Whether the successor-in-
interest of a widow is also obliged to send an intimation to the tenant
of cessation of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise
his right of purchase; (ii) In the event the answer to above question
(1) or (2) is in affirmative, whether decision of this Court in Appa
Narsappa Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan
needs reconsideration and explanation.
Referring the matters to larger Bench, the Court
HELD: 1. The ratio of the Appa Narsappa Magdum (D)
Through LRS. v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar and Others, Sudam
Ganpat Kutwal, Power-of-Attorney-Holder of Shankar Sitaram
Bhosle v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (Dead) by LR. Maruti
Shankar Pachpute and Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan
Chavan (Dead) by LRS. and Others, and other judgments can be
restated in following words: (i) For a landlord suffering from a
disability on the Tillers Day i.e. 01.04.1957, the deemed purchase
shall be suspended; (ii) Landlord suffering from a disability has a
right under Section 31(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948 to give notice of termination of tenancy and file
an application for possession; (iii) Under Section 31(3), a minor,
within one year from date on which he attains majority; a
successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date on
which her interest in the land ceases to exist; and landlord within
one year from the date on which his/her mental or physical
disability ceases to exist can also give an application for
termination of tenanc

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