Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court recently adjudicated a dispute concerning the purchase rights of a tenant over agricultural land under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The court examined the validity of the tenant's claim under Section 32G and Section 32F, focusing on statutory compliance, procedural delays, and judicial precedents. The judgment addressed the interplay between the rights of landlords and tenants under tenancy laws and the impact of the 1969 amendment, which introduced a mandatory obligation on landlords to notify tenants upon attaining majority. The ruling reviewed previous decisions by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) and the Assistant Collector and determined the legal standing of the tenant's claim.

The dispute pertains to land bearing Survey No. 285/1, admeasuring 4 Hectares 35 Ares plus 3 Ares pot-kharaba, situated at Village Devarashtra, Taluka Khanapur, District Sangli. The land was originally owned by Shankar Govind Kurlekar. A registered partition deed executed on August 4, 1956, transferred ownership to his sons, Mukund Shankar Kurlekar and Raosaheb alias Rajabhau Shankar Kurlekar, who were minors at the time.

On the Tiller’s Day (April 1, 1957), the legal ownership of the land vested with Mukund and Raosaheb, and their names were duly recorded in the revenue records through Mutation Entry No. 2899, certified on April 8, 1957. The tenant, Sagaru Laxman Shinde, sought to exercise his right to purchase the land under Section 32G of the Act, initiating proceedings in 1963. However, the proceedings were dropped as Mukund and Raosaheb were minors, and the Assistant Collector postponed the tenant's right until the landlord’s attained majority.

Mukund attained majority on February 8, 1960, while Raosaheb reached the legal age on February 18, 1964. Despite this, no action was taken by the tenant within the stipulated period. It was only on December 4, 1986, that fresh proceedings were initiated by the tenant for fixation of the purchase price. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) rejected the application, citing a failure to issue notice within the prescribed two-year period from the landlords attaining majority. The Assistant Collector reversed this decision, ruling that the filing of proceedings under Section 32G itself constituted sufficient intimation to the landlords.

The landlords challenged this ruling before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), which set aside the Assistant Collector’s order, restoring the ALT’s decision. The tenant, aggrieved by the MRT ruling, moved the Bombay High Court, contending that the judgment was contrary to judicial precedents favouring tenants' rights.

The High Court examined the statutory framework of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, with specific reference to Section 32G and Section 32F. The court noted that under Section 32F(1)(a), a tenant is required to exercise their right to purchase within one year after the landlord’s right to terminate tenancy under Section 31 expires. This effectively grants a two-year period from the date of the landlord attaining majority.

The court referred to judicial precedents, including Balkrishna @ Vilas Ramji Todakar v. Banabai Lahu Patil and Malan Narayan Sakhare v. Bibhishan Jagannath More & Ors., which stated that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to protect tenants. The petitioner relied on these cases to argue that procedural lapses should not invalidate substantive rights, particularly where landlords failed to notify tenants as required under the 1969 amendment to Section 32F.

The respondents, however, contended that the right to purchase was extinguished due to non-compliance with statutory deadlines. They argued that the amendment requiring landlords to issue notifications was not applicable retroactively, and since both landlords attained majority before 1969, there was no obligation to notify the tenant. The court noted that the Full Bench in Vishnu Shantaram Desai v. Smt. Indira Anant Patkar had held that the amendment applies only prospectively, reinforcing the argument that the tenant’s claim was time-barred.

After considering the submissions and judicial precedents, the court held that:

• The proceedings initiated by the tenant in 1986 were barred by the doctrine of res judicata concerning Mukund's share, as the issue had attained finality in the 1963 proceedings.

• With respect to Raosaheb’s share, the proceedings were not barred by res judicata since he attained majority after the 1963 decision.

• The 1969 amendment mandating landlords to issue intimation to tenants was not applicable to this case, as both landlords had attained majority before its enactment.

• The failure of the tenant to exercise the right to purchase within the statutory period resulted in the permanent forfeiture of the right to purchase under Section 32F.

• The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s decision was upheld, and the Assistant Collector’s order was set aside.

Case Title: Shri Sagaru Laxman Shinde (deceased) through LRs v. Shri Mukund Shankar Kurlekar (deceased) through LRs & Anr.

Case Number: WP-1337-1998

Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne

[Read/Download order]