AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (8) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perties. The estate was last held by the father of the plaintiff who expired on or about March 9, 1948 leaving behind him the plaintiff who was then a minor as his only heir. On August 26, 1948 the Collector of Ahmedabad was appointed as the guardian of the properties of the plaintiff by an order of the District Court, Ahmedabad. Subsequently, on or about January 15, 1953, the then Bombay Government assumed management of the estate under the Court of Wards Act 1905 (Bombay Act No. 1 of 1905) and appointed the Collector of Ahmedabad as the manager of the same. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants fraudulently entered into a conspiracy with the Collector's subordinate staff for getting possession of the disputed lands. In this connection the first defendant wrote to the District Collector, Ahmedabad on July 25, 1956 representing that certain persons formed or will form a Co-operative Society for carrying on agriculture and therefore required the lands for that purpose. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 also made applications for that purpose alleging that they were Rabari, kept cattle and were residents of Ahmedabad but none of them had any agricultural land. On account of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iated by fraud, and (3) that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether the defendants were or were not tenants from the date of the suit and this question could only be decided by the Revenue Authorities. For these reasons the High Court directed that under Section 85-A of the Act the following issue should be referred to the Mamlatdar having jurisdiction in the matter for his decision and that the officer shall communicate his decision, or, if there are appeals from the decision, the final decision, to the High Court as soon as possible. The issue was as follows: "Do the defendants prove that they are tenants of the lands in suit The High Court further directed that the hearing of the appeal should stand adjourned until after the relevant communication was received from the Revenue Authorities. 3. It is necessary at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of the Act as it stood at the material time. Section 2 (18) states: "2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (18) 'tenant' means a person who holds land on lease and includes- (a) a person who is deemed to be a ten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nant shall have the right to purchase such land under Section 32 within one year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31: Provided that where a person of such category is a member or a joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if at least one member of the joint family is outside the categories mentioned in this sub-section unless before the 31st day of March 1958 the share of such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is satisfied that the share of such person in the land is separated, having regard to the area, assessment, classification and value of the land in the same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family property and not in a larger proportion. (b) Where the tenant is a minor or a widow or a person subject to any mental or physical disability or a serving member of the armed forces, then subject to the provisions of clause (a), the right to purchase land under Section 32 may be exercised- (i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he attains majority; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is a tenant or a- protected tenant (or a permanent tenant); . . . (c) to decide such other matters as may be referred to him by or under this Act." Section85 states: "(1) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal, a Manager, the Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in appeal or revision or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control. (2) No order of the Mamlatdar, the Tribunal, the Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal or the State Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section a Civil Court shall include a Mamlatdar's Court constituted under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906." Section 85-A provides as follows: "(1) If any suit instituted in any Civil Court involves any issues which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any authority competent to settle, decide or deal with such issues under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'compete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... of land under Section 63 may be granted- (1) The Collector or other officer authorised under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 shall not grant permission for the sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage of any land in favour of a person who is not either an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer or who, being an agriculturist, cultivates personally land not less than the ceiling area whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant unless any of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) such a person bona fide requires the land for a non-agricultural purpose; or (b) the land is required for the benefit of an industrial or commercial undertaking or an educational or charitable institution; or (c) such land being mortgaged, the mortgagee has obtained from the Collector a certificate that he intends to take the profession of an agriculturist and agrees to cultivate the land personally; or (d) the land is required by a Co-operative Society; or 4. The first question to be considered in this case is whether the High Court was right in taking the view that the plaintiff failed to establish that the lease cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the effects of the amendment of Section 88 was that Sections1 to 87-A were not applicable to "an estate or land taken under the management of the Court of Wards". So, it is not in dispute that after August 1, 1956 the provisions contained in Sections 1 to 87-A of the Act did not apply to the suit lands. It is also admitted that after the cessation of the management by the Court of Wards the provisions of the Act again became applicable to the suit lands. It has been found by the High Court upon examination of the evidence that the Court of Wards withdrew its superintendence on May 11, 1958 when the order for the release of the management was actually passed and not on May 11, 1957 when the plaintiff attained majority. It is evident therefore that the Act applied to the suit lands before August 1, 1956, that Sections 1 to 87-A did not apply during the period between August 1, 1956 and May 11, 1958 which was the date on which the management of the estate by the Court of Wards ceased, and that the provisions of the Act again applied to the suit lands after the cessation of such management. On behalf of the defendants the argument was presented that there was a valid lease granted o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i addressed the argument that the question whether the defendants were tenants with effect from July 28, 1956 or thereafter was an issue which was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court under Section 70 of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. It was argued that the issue of ownership was not the primary issue before the High Court and the main question was whether the defendants were or were not the tenants of the suit lands on the material date, namely, July 28, 1956 or on May 11, 1958 and such a question lay within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities. In other words, it was argued that the determination of the question whether the lease was created which subsisted after August 1, 1956 or which subsisted also on May 11, 1958 was not a matter within the scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court. We are unable to accept the argument put forward by Mr. Hathi as correct. Section 70(b) of the Act imposes a duty on the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is a tenant, but the subsection does not cast a duty upon him to decide whether a person was or was not a tenant in the past-whether recent or remote. The main question in the present case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act are applicable or not applicable to the disputed land during a particular period. We accordingly reject the argument of Mr. Hathi on this aspect of the case. 8. The next contention on behalf of the plaintiff is that the High Court was in error in referring to the Mamlatdar under Section 85-A of the Act, the issue whether "the defendants were tenants of the land in suit". It was pointed out by Mr. S. T. Desai that the High Court had rejected the contention of the defendants that the tenancy was created on July 28, 1956 but the defendants were tenants only with effect from August 24, 1956. The High Court has further found that there was no subsisting tenancy on May 11, 1958 when there was a cessation of the management of the Court of Wards. The suit was brought by the plaintiff on July 11, 1958 and the argument put forward on behalf of the plaintiff is that there was no plea on behalf of the defendants that there was any intervening act, event or transaction between May 11, 1958 and July 11, 1958 under which a fresh tenancy was created. In other words, the argument on behalf of the plaintiff was that the only plea set up on behalf of the defendants was the plea of tenanc....