Case Note & Summary
The case involves agricultural lands owned by the petitioners (landlords) which were let out to the deceased respondent no.1 (tenant). The tenant was declared a deemed purchaser under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and was required to pay the purchase price in 12 instalments of Rs.689/- each plus yearly interest from 1974, with the last instalment due on 22.9.1986. The tenant failed to pay any instalment, resulting in arrears of Rs.14,179/- including interest. The Additional Tahasildar issued a final notice on 2.2.1991 calling upon the tenant to pay the entire amount, which was ignored. Consequently, the Tahasildar by order dated 20.2.1991 declared the purchase ineffective under Section 32A of the Act and forfeited the land to the State Government. The landlord challenged the forfeiture, and the Appellate Authority corrected the error and restored the lands to the petitioners. The petitioners later sold the lands to one Harekar. The tenant independently challenged the Tahasildar's order before the S.D.O. Sawantwadi, but the appeal was dismissed. Both orders were then challenged belatedly by the tenant before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) without any application for condonation of delay. The MRT condoned the delay solely on the strength of an affidavit and passed a composite order condoning the delay and allowing the revision, without giving the landlord an opportunity to oppose the condonation. The landlord argued that the MRT's order was non-speaking and violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the MRT's procedure was improper as it did not afford the landlord an opportunity to oppose the condonation, and the order condoning the delay was unsustainable. The court also noted that the tenant's default in payment justified the declaration of purchase as ineffective under Section 32A, and the provisions of Section 32K(3) cannot be interpreted to defeat the scheme of Sections 32K(1A) and (1B). The court set aside the MRT's order and restored the orders of the lower authorities.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Condonation of Delay - Opportunity of Hearing - The MRT condoned a delay of several years in filing revision without issuing notice to the landlord or affording him an opportunity to oppose the condonation, and passed a composite order condoning delay and allowing the revision. Held that such procedure violates principles of natural justice and the order is unsustainable (Paras 3, 5). B) Tenancy Law - Purchase Ineffective - Default in Payment - Section 32A, 32K(1A), 32K(1B) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The tenant failed to pay any instalment of the purchase price despite notice, leading to arrears of Rs.14,179/-. The Tahasildar declared the purchase ineffective under Section 32A. Held that the tenant's default justified the declaration, and the provisions of Section 32K(3) cannot be interpreted to defeat the scheme of Sections 32K(1A) and (1B) (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) was justified in condoning a huge delay in filing revision without giving the landlord an opportunity to oppose the condonation and without recording reasons, and whether the order declaring the purchase ineffective under Section 32A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was proper.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the common judgment of the MRT dated 27.9.1996, and restored the orders of the lower authorities declaring the purchase ineffective.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay without affording opportunity to oppose is improper
- Section 32A Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948
- Section 32K(1A) and (1B) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948
- Purchase declared ineffective for non-payment of instalments
