Restorative tenancy rights under Section 32(1-B) depend on prior dispossession, not voluntary surrender of possession.

Section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 confers a restorative right only where a tenant was in possession on the appointed date and was dispossessed before 1 April 1957 otherwise than under Section 29. The provision is described as beneficial and capable of liberal construction to advance the object of conferring ownership on cultivating tenants, but the requirement of prior dispossession remains distinct from voluntary surrender or abandonment of possession. On the facts discussed, voluntary relinquishment of possession did not satisfy the statutory condition for restoration or deemed purchase. The dissent emphasised that the High Court should not have disturbed the Revenue Tribunal's factual findings in Article 227 proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether a tenant who had surrendered or voluntarily given up possession could claim restoration and purchase of the land under Section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 32(1-B) confers a restorative right only on a tenant who was in possession on the appointed date and who was dispossessed before 1 April 1957 otherwise than in the manner contemplated by Section 29. The provision was held to be part of a beneficial legislative scheme and to deserve a liberal construction so as to advance the object of conferring ownership on cultivating tenants. At the same time, the statutory requirement of being "dispossessed" was treated as distinct from a tenant's voluntary surrender or abandonment of possession. On the findings accepted by the majority, the appellant had either surrendered tenancy or otherwise left possession voluntarily, which did not amount to dispossession within the meaning of the section.

Conclusion: The appellant did not satisfy the statutory condition of prior dispossession and was not entitled to restoration or deemed purchase under Section 32(1-B).

Dissenting Opinion: V. Ramaswami, J. held that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the Revenue Tribunal's factual findings in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On that view, the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant continued as tenant was , and the appeal should have succeeded with restoration of the Tribunal's order.

---