Mandatory tenancy inquiry and review safeguards: non-compliance under purchase-failure provisions invalidates the foundation and consequential land surrender order.

Non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act can render a declaration that a tenant's purchase is ineffective invalid, especially where the tenant had earlier appeared, the authority acted mechanically on a single absence, and the proviso requiring communication and an opportunity for review was not shown to have been satisfied. A consequential order under Section 32P cannot stand without a valid foundation under Section 32G, and failure to address the statutory refund requirement further undermines its legality. The stated result is quashing of the impugned orders and remand for a fresh inquiry from the stage of recording the tenant's statement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order declaring purchase ineffective under Section 32G(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 could be sustained when the tenant had appeared earlier, the order was passed mechanically on a single date of non-appearance, and the proviso requiring communication and opportunity for review was not shown to have been complied with; (ii) whether the consequential order under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 directing surrender of the land could stand when the foundation order under Section 32G(3) had not been validly made.

Issue (i): Whether an order declaring purchase ineffective under Section 32G(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 could be sustained when the tenant had appeared earlier, the order was passed mechanically on a single date of non-appearance, and the proviso requiring communication and opportunity for review was not shown to have been complied with.

Analysis: The statutory inquiry under Section 32G is inquisitorial and requires the Tribunal to decide the tenant's willingness to purchase in a judicial manner. A declaration that the purchase is ineffective can be made only when the tenant fails to appear in the sense contemplated by the provision or expressly states that he is unwilling to purchase. A single absence after earlier appearance, especially where both parties were absent and the authority acted mechanically, does not satisfy the statutory condition. The proviso to Section 32G(3) also makes communication of the order mandatory where it is passed for default of appearance, because the right of review depends upon such communication. Since communication was not proved and the review application was not effectively dealt with, the order suffered from non-compliance with mandatory requirements and could not sustain the plea of limitation.

Conclusion: The order under Section 32G(3) was invalid and could not be upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the consequential order under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 directing surrender of the land could stand when the foundation order under Section 32G(3) had not been validly made.

Analysis: The power to proceed under Section 32P arises only after the purchase has validly become ineffective under Section 32G. If the foundational declaration under Section 32G(3) is a nullity for failure to comply with mandatory statutory requirements, the subsequent disposal of land under Section 32P has no legal basis. The requirement of compliance with Section 32P(3) regarding refund to the tenant was also not properly addressed in the manner required by law, reinforcing the unsustainability of the order.

Conclusion: The consequential order under Section 32P could not be sustained and had to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for a fresh statutory inquiry under Section 32G from the stage of recording the tenant's statement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a mandatory inquiry and a mandatory requirement of communication with a linked right of review, non-compliance renders the declaration ineffective and any consequential order based upon it without jurisdiction.

---