VINODCHANDRA SAKARLAL KAPADIA versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 15-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
897
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 897
897
VINODCHANDRA SAKARLAL KAPADIA
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2573 of 2020)
JUNE 15, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA
AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – ss.63,
43 & 14, 17, 17B, 27, 29, 32, 32A, 32B, 32F, 32H, 32I, 32O, 32P,
32PP, 32PPP, 32QQ, 32R, 32U, 33(1), 63A, 64, 84C, 88B, 88E –
Agricultural land was in the cultivating possession of a tenant, who
became deemed purchaser under the Act as he was cultivating the
land on tiller’s day – Land bequeathed through Will in favour of
appellant – However, it was found that the appellant was not an
agriculturist and the disposal by way of Will in his favour was
contrary to s.63 – Land was declared to be vested in the State –
Division Bench inter alia held that s.63 bars the transfer of
agricultural land to a non-agriculturist for non-agricultural
purpose unless permission is obtained from Collector/authorised
officer – Held: Provisions of the Act intend to confer the advantage
of statutory purchase upon a cultivating tenant, and see that “the
tiller of the land” is conferred ownership w.r.t the lands cultivated
by him as well as the dwelling house occupied by him – In cases
where the tenant is unable to exercise the right of purchase because
his holding would go beyond ceiling limit, the land would not revert
to the landlord, but in terms of s.32P, it must come to the persons or
entities listed in the priority list (includes agricultural labourers,
landless persons) – If a tenant or any other person from the priority
list is conferred ownership in respect of the agricultural land or
when a landlord is allowed to retain the land surrendered by his
tenant, each of them is obliged to cultivate the land personally – In
case any of them is unwilling, the land must be given to those who
principally depend upon agricultural operations for their sustenance
– If a person is a beneficiary of such statutory purchase and wishes
to transfer his holding, the law obliges that he must take prior
sanction from the Collector – A transfer inter vivos would normally
be for consideration where the transferor may get value for the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
land but the legislation requires previous sanction of the concerned
authority so that the transferee can step into the shoes of transferor
and carry out all the obligations – As against this, if a testamentary
disposition which does not have the element of consideration is to
be permitted, and if it is assumed that ss.43 & 63 do not get attracted,
the land can be bequeathed to a total stranger and a non-
agriculturist who may not cultivate the land himself leading to
engagement of somebody as a tenant on the land – Legislative intent
to do away with absentee landlordism; to protect the cultivating
tenants and to establish direct relationship between the cultivator
and the land would then be rendered otiose – In the context of the
entire scheme, the term “assignment” used in s.43 must include
testamentary disposition as well – View taken by Division Bench is
correct – In pith and substance, the legislation and the concerned
provisions are completely within the competence of State Legislature
– Interpretation of Statutes – Doctrine of pith and substance – Indian
Succession Act, 1925 – Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A) In terms of Section 32, on the tillers’ day
every tenant satisfying the requirements spelt out in Section 32(1),
and upto the ceiling limit as laid down in Section 32A, is deemed
to have purchased from his landlord, free from all encumbrances,
the land held by him as tenant.
B) The purchase price payable by the tenant for such
deemed purchase is to be determined in terms of Section 32H,
according to which, in case of a permanent tenant the purchase
price has to be equal to six times the rent, while in case of other
tenants, the purchase price would not be less than 20 times the
assessment, and not more than 200 times the assessment.
C) In case the proceedings for eviction of the tenant are
pending, the deemed date of purchase will stand postponed in
terms of the first proviso to Section 32.
D) Even if the tenant had lost the possession before the
tillers’ day, in certain cases the possession can be restored to
him and the benefit of statutory purchase can be enjoyed by him
as stipulated in sub-sections (1A) and (1B) of Section 32. The
benefit of stat

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