1999 (5) TMI 627 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Land Purchase Ruling under Bombay Tenancy Act

Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Thr. Lrs Versus Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar and Ors.

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition challenging the legality of the order confirming the ... - Issues:Challenge to legality of order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirming Sub-Divisional Officer's order under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1947.Analysis:The appellant, a tenant, appealed against the Bombay High Court's dismissal of his Writ Petition questioning the legality of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which confirmed the Sub-Divisional Officer's order in TNC Appeal No. 192/79. The appellant's right to purchase the land under Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 was governed by the fact that the landlady was a widow. The landlady passed away, and the tenant failed to comply with the requirement of Section 32F within the stipulated period. The heirs of the landlady contended that the purchase had become ineffective due to the tenant's failure to exercise his right under Section 32F within the prescribed time. The Tribunal accepted this contention, and the High Court confirmed the Tribunal's decision in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.The appellant argued that despite the High Court's earlier decision, he still had the right to purchase the land under Section 32F. However, the Court found it difficult to accept this argument. Section 32F provides that in cases where the landlord is a widow, the tenant must exercise the right to purchase the land within one year from the expiry of the period during which the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31. The tenant failed to comply with this requirement, as the intimation was given long after the deadline had passed. The Court emphasized that the language of Sections 32F and 31 is clear, and the period of one year must be counted in accordance with these provisions, not from the date of the tenant's knowledge. The Court rejected the argument that the period should be counted from the date of the tenant's knowledge, stating that equity cannot override the clear provisions of the law.Ultimately, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the Writ Petition, ruling that the appellant must hand over possession of the land as directed by the Tehsildar within one month from the date of the judgment. The appeal was deemed to have failed and was consequently dismissed.