1964 (12) TMI 47 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Order, Invalidates Ejectment Proceedings

PATEL CHUNIBHAI DAJIBHAI Versus NARAYANRAO KHANDERAO JAMBEKAR AND ANOTHER

The Supreme Court held that the Collector's order of February 17, 1959, was valid under Section 76A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 76A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. Applicability of the amended Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, to pending ejectment proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 76A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:The appellants, tenants against whom ejectment orders had been passed, argued that these orders were illegal under Section 76A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The landlord contended that the Collector had no power to reconsider the matter after rejecting the tenants' applications on October 3, 4, and 17, 1958, under Section 76A, making the February 17, 1959, order invalid.Analysis:- Section 76A allows the Collector to call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings of any Mamlatdar or Tribunal to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of any order and pass such order as he deems fit.- The Collector can act suo motu or on a reference made by the Divisional Officer or the State Government.- The proviso to Section 76A states that no record shall be called for after one year from the date of the order, and no order shall be modified, annulled, or reversed without giving the interested parties an opportunity to be heard.The Court concluded that the Collector's order of October 3, 4, or 17, 1958, was not a valid order under Section 76A because the record had not been received by then. Thus, the only valid order was the one made on February 17, 1959, after the record had been received and perused.2. Applicability of the Amended Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, to Pending Ejectment Proceedings:The tenants argued that under the amended Section 32, they should be deemed to have purchased the land on April 1, 1957, making the landlord's applications for their ejectment filed after March 31, 1957, invalid.Analysis:- Section 32 was amended by Act XXXVIII of 1957, which came into force on September 28, 1957, and was retrospective from August 1, 1956.- Section 32(1) states that every tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land held by him as a tenant on April 1, 1957, if certain conditions are met.- These conditions include the landlord not having given notice of termination under Section 31, or if such notice was given, the landlord not having applied to the Mamlatdar on or before March 31, 1957, for possession under Section 29.- The High Court held that the amended Section 32 did not apply to pending applications for ejectment, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court found that the amended Section 32 was intended to affect pending proceedings, making any application for ejectment filed after March 31, 1957, incompetent.Conclusion:- The Supreme Court held that the Collector's order of February 17, 1959, was valid and properly made under Section 76A.- The Court also held that the amended Section 32 applied to pending ejectment proceedings, making the landlord's applications for ejectment filed after March 31, 1957, invalid.- The Mamlatdar's orders of ejectment were illegal, and the tenants were deemed to have purchased the land on April 1, 1957.Separate Judgments:- Sarkar J.: Concluded that the Collector's order of February 17, 1959, was valid and the tenants had become purchasers under the amended Section 32, making the Mamlatdar's orders of ejectment illegal.- Bachawat J.: Agreed that the amended Section 32 applied retrospectively but held that the Collector could not review his previous orders under Section 76A. Thus, the High Court's decision to set aside the Collector's order should be affirmed on different grounds.Order:- The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's decision to set aside the Collector's order and restore the Mamlatdar's order.