Pamchandra Hasha Dalvi (Deceased) Throuth Lrs. vs D.PATWARDHAN (Deceased) Through Lrs.
- SCC(1998) 8 SCC 82
- AIRAIR 1999 SC 2039
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act makes a statement rejecting the statutory right to purchase land under Section 32, and that statement is found by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal to have been made voluntarily, the statutory purchase becomes ineffective; a subsequent application by the tenant to purchase the land after such rejection cannot be entertained as it is not maintainable, and the landlord becomes entitled to possession of the land under Section 32-P of the Act. Where a tenant seeks to challenge an order passed in proceedings under Section 32-G by leading evidence in proceedings under Section 32-P, evidence relating to whether the earlier statement of rejection was voluntary or was made on oath, or whether statutory notice was received, cannot be admitted at that later stage and does not provide grounds to reopen the earlier determination that the statutory purchase had become ineffective.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
JUDGMENT Nanavati.J. This appeal is filed by the tenant against the judgment and or der dated 3.8.1990 passed by the High Court of Bombaly in Writ Petition No. 95 of 1980.
The Agricultural Lands Tribunal, The deputy District Collector in appeal and the Revenue Tribunal in revision have held that the tenant had made a statement on 13.1.1965 stating that he was not willing to purchase the land and, therefore, the purchase under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act had become ineffective. After the purchase was declared ineffective, the tenant made an application declaring that he wants to purchase the land. That application was dismissed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal as not maintainable. Another application was moved by the tenant on 12.1.1967. That was also dismissed on 13.3.1967 for the same reason. Again an application was made by the tenant on 15.2.1968 stating therein that the statement dated 13.1.1965 was not voluntarily made by him and in any case it was not conclusive as it was not made on oath. He also alleged that no notice regarding statutory purchase of the land was received by him. This application was rejected by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal on the ground that at that stage evidence could be led only with respect to the proceeding under Section 32-P of the Act and no evidence could be led to question the order passed in the 32-G proceedings. The Tribunal than held that the statutory sale in favour of the tenant having become ineffective the landlord was entitled to be put in possession of the land. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld in appeal and also in the revision application.
As all the authorities have, after appreciating the material on record, come to the conclusion that the sale had become ineffective and the landlord was entitled to possession of the land under Section 32-P of the Act, the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free