# VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. & ORS v. ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 15 S.C.R. 569
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-09-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11774 of 2018
- **Bench:** R. F. Nariman, R. Subhash Reddy, Surya Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vasant-ganpat-padave-d-by-lrs-ors-v-anant-mahadev-sawant-d-through-lrs-ors-33877
- **Pages:** 62

## Headnote

Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 -
s.32-F(1)(a) - Amendment made in s. 32 F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969
- Object and purpose of - Relevancy and applicability of the
object of Amendment made in s. 32-F(1)(a) by Act of 1969 for
exercise of right to purchase by a tenant of a landlord who was a
widow or suffering from mental or physical disability on Tillers'
day - Held: Object of the Amendment Act of 1969 is relevant and
applicable in deciding the scope of the right to purchase by a
tenant of a landlord who was a widow or suffering from mental
or physical disability on Tillers' day - Successor-in-interest of a
widow is obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation
of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right
of purchase.
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 -
s. 32-F(1)(a) - Interpretation of - Literal interpretation or golden
rule of interpretation - By introduction of s 32-F by the Amendment
Act of 1956, tenant was given right to purchase where landlord
was minor or a widow or a person subject to mental or physical
disability within one year from the expiry of the period during
which such landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy u/s. 31
- However, number of tenants holding land from landlords who
were minors lost right to purchase land for their failure to give
intimation within the period laid down in sub-section (1-A) of s.
32 - Thus, to give the tenants fresh opportunity to purchase land,
s.32-F amended by Amendment Act 49 of 1969 - Words "and for
enabling the tenant to exercise the right of purchase, the landlord
shall send an intimation to the tenant of the fact that he has attained
majority, before the expiry of the period during which such
landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy u/s. 31, inserted into
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 569
569
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
sub section (1)(a) - Amendment to s.32-F(1)(a) expressly covered
a case of landlord who was minor and has attained majority, but
other two categories 'widow or a person subject to mental or
physical not expressly included - Held: Literal reading of s. 32F(1)(a) would lead to absurd situation - Draftsman forgot that
when the addition to s. 32-F(1)(a) was made, s. 32F(1)(a) referred
to three categories of landlords and not only one - Law may
recognise degrees of harm, but in so doing the classification should
never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive - Classification made in
favour of tenants of minor landlords as opposed to tenants of
landlords of the other two categories is arbitrary in nature - Thus,
such classification would ordinarily have to be struck down as
being violative of Art. 14 - However, instead of striking down such
classification as a whole, the words "..of the fact that he has
attained majority..", can be striked down, as a result s. 32-F(1)(a)
now ceases to be discriminatory, since it is applicable to tenants
of all three categories of landlords - Thus, in order to read s. 32F(1)(a) in conformity with Art. 14, the words "..of the fact that he
has attained majority.." is eliminated so that the intimation that is
to be made by the landlord has to be made to tenants of all the
three categories of landlords covered by the provision -
Interpretation of statutes - Constitution of India - Art.14.
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 -
s. 32-F(1)(a) - Right of tenant to purchase where landlord is minor,
etc. - Construction of s. 32 F(1)(a) - Held: Cultivating tenant in
all cases where the landlord is a minor, a widow or a person
subjected to a disability, does not statutorily become owner of the
agricultural land cultivated personally by him on Tillers' Day -
These three categories of landlords are deemed to cultivate
personally through such tenant - In any of these three cases, the
moment the disability ceases, the land no longer belongs to a minor,
as he has become major, or to a widow, as she has died or
transferred her share with pe

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 143,742. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
569
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
v.
ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11774 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 18, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 -
s.32-F(1)(a) - Amendment made in s. 32 F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969
- Object and purpose of - Relevancy and applicability of the
object of Amendment made in s. 32-F(1)(a) by Act of 1969 for
exercise of right to purchase by a tenant of a landlord who was a
widow or suffering from mental or physical disability on Tillers'
day - Held: Object of the Amendment Act of 1969 is relevant and
applicable in deciding the scope of the right to purchase by a
tenant of a landlord who was a widow or suffering from mental
or physical disability on Tillers' day - Successor-in-interest of a
widow is obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation
of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right
of purchase.
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 -
s. 32-F(1)(a) - Interpretation of - Literal interpretation or golden
rule of interpretation - By introduction of s 32-F by the Amendment
Act of 1956, tenant was given right to purchase where landlord
was minor or a widow or a person subject to mental or physical
disability within one year from the expiry of the period during
which such landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy u/s. 31
- However, number of tenants holding land from landlords who
were minors lost right to purchase land for their failure to give
intimation within the period laid down in sub-section (1-A) of s.
32 - Thus, to give the tenants fresh opportunity to purchase land,
s.32-F amended by Amendment Act 49 of 1969 - Words "and for
enabling the tenant to exercise the right of purchase, the landlord
shall send an intimation to the tenant of the fact that he has attained
majority, before the expiry of the period during which such
landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy u/s. 31, inserted into
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 569
569
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
sub section (1)(a) - Amendment to s.32-F(1)(a) expressly covered
a case of landlord who was minor and has attained majority, but
other two categories 'widow or a person subject to mental or
physical not expressly included - Held: Literal reading of s. 32F(1)(a) would lead to absurd situation - Draftsman forgot that
when the addition to s. 32-F(1)(a) was made, s. 32F(1)(a) referred
to three categories of landlords and not only one - Law may
recognise degrees of harm, but in so doing the classification should
never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive - Classification made in
favour of tenants of minor landlords as opposed to tenants of
landlords of the other two categories is arbitrary in nature - Thus,
such classification would ordinarily have to be struck down as
being violative of Art. 14 - However, instead of striking down such
classification as a whole, the words "..of the fact that he has
attained majority..", can be striked down, as a result s. 32-F(1)(a)
now ceases to be discriminatory, since it is applicable to tenants
of all three categories of landlords - Thus, in order to read s. 32F(1)(a) in conformity with Art. 14, the words "..of the fact that he
has attained majority.." is eliminated so that the intimation that is
to be made by the landlord has to be made to tenants of all the
three categories of landlords covered by the provision -
Interpretation of statutes - Constitution of India - Art.14.
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 -
s. 32-F(1)(a) - Right of tenant to purchase where landlord is minor,
etc. - Construction of s. 32 F(1)(a) - Held: Cultivating tenant in
all cases where the landlord is a minor, a widow or a person
subjected to a disability, does not statutorily become owner of the
agricultural land cultivated personally by him on Tillers' Day -
These three categories of landlords are deemed to cultivate
personally through such tenant - In any of these three cases, the
moment the disability ceases, the land no longer belongs to a minor,
as he has become major, or to a widow, as she has died or
transferred her share with permission u/s.63, or to a person whose
mental or physical disability ceases - Such persons are granted
one year to apply for resumption of the land on the ground that
such persons wish to personally cultivate the said land, pursuant
to which an application for possession of land u/s. 29 may then
be made - In case this is done within the time prescribed, the
tenant's right to purchase does not fructify - Right of the tenant is
postponed, only when this is not done within the period of one year.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The object of the Amendment Act of 1969 is
relevant and applicable in deciding the scope of the right to
purchase by a tenant of a landlord who was a widow or suffering
from mental or physical disability on Tillers' day. The successorin-interest of a widow is obliged to send an intimation to the
tenant of cessation of interest of the widow to enable the tenant
to exercise his right of purchase. [Para 50] [630-C-E]
2.1 The Scheme of the Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and in particular, the 1956
Amendment, which introduced Tillers' Day, is that an absentee
landlord's rights in the land must give way to a cultivating tenant.
Statutorily, on Tillers' Day, the landlord is divested of title and
the tenant is vested with title to agricultural land which he
cultivates by dint of his own effort. It is only in three cases that
such purchase becomes ineffective-if the tenant fails to appear
within the time prescribed after notice is given to him, or
appears and declines purchase, or if the tenant fails to pay the
entire purchase price. The widow, the minor and the person
subject to a disability are placed on the same pedestal, and
throughout their widowhood, minority or period of disability are
deemed to cultivate the land personally through their tenants -
the Explanation - I to Section 2(6) makes this clear. In the vast
majority of cases, the landlord is divested of his title on a fixed
date i.e. 1st April, 1957. It is only in exceptional cases where the
landlord is a widow, minor or a person subjected to disability that
this right of the tenant is postponed. It is important to note that
it is to the knowledge of both landlord and tenant that the tenant
becomes the owner statutorily on a fixed date i.e. 1st April, 1957.
Even otherwise, on postponed dates that are mentioned under
Section 32, the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the
land on such postponed date under the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 32 when an application for possession
made by the landlord under Section 29 is finally rejected - a date
that is to the knowledge of both landlord and tenant. Also, under
the circumstances prescribed under Section 32(1A), again the
tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on a
date on which a final order is passed by the Tribunal in the
circumstances mentioned in the said sub-section. Again, under
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
sub-section (1B), in the circumstances mentioned in the said subsection, land gets restored to the tenant upon which deemed
purchase takes place. Statutorily, therefore, in all cases covered
by s. 32, the landlord is divested of his title either on Tillers'
Day or on a postponed date which is to the knowledge of the
tenant, as the said date is on and from a final order of a Tribunal
or a Tahsildar, as the case may be. [Para 13] [600-H; 601-A-F]
2.2 Section 32-G is a very important pointer to the fact that
a tenant must be put on notice in order that the purchase price
of land be determined by the Tribunal. This notice under Section
32-G(1) is in the form of a public notice in the prescribed form
in each village. Apart from this, the Tribunal shall also issue a
notice individually to each tenant calling upon him to appear
before it on the date specified in the notice. The same is the
case of a tenant who is deemed to have purchased the land on
the postponed date under Section 32-G(5). Under Section 32-O
in respect of tenancies created after Tillers' Day, a tenant
cultivating personally shall be entitled, within one year from the
commencement of such tenancy, to purchase such land within
the ceiling area. Under sub-section (1A), this right is to be
exercised by giving an intimation in that behalf to the landlord
and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period of
one year. This again is a date which is within the knowledge of
the tenant as the period of one year is calculated from the
commencement of his tenancy. It can thus be seen that in the
case of postponed dates under Section 32 and the right of a
tenant in respect of tenancies created after Tillers' Day, the
tenant is to exercise his statutory right knowing fully well that
if he does not do so within the prescribed period or does not
pay purchase price, the purchase either becomes ineffective or
the right cannot be exercised. In all these cases, the tenant
knows of the time within which he must exercise his rights. [Para
14] [601-G-H; 602-A-D]
2.3 Section 32-F was introduced by the Amendment Act
of 1956 as part of a scheme of agrarian reform. The reason for
the non-obstante clause, with which the Section begins, is that
the cultivating tenant in all cases where the landlord is a minor,
a widow or a person subjected to a disability, does not statutorily
become owner of the agricultural land cultivated personally by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
him on Tillers' Day. This is for the reason that under Section
2(6) Explanation- I, these three categories of landlords are
deemed to cultivate personally through such tenant. The
entitlement of terminating a tenancy under any one of these three
categories is contained in Section 31(3). In any of these three
cases, the moment the disability ceases i.e. that the land in
question no longer belongs to a minor, as he has become major,
or to a widow, as she has died or transferred her share with
permission under Section 63, or to a person whose mental or
physical disability ceases, one year is granted for such persons
to apply for resumption of the land on the ground that such
persons wish to personally cultivate the said land, pursuant to
which an application for possession of land under Section 29
may then be made. In case this is done within the time
prescribed, the tenant's right to purchase does not fructify. It is
only when this is not done within the period of one year, the
postponed right of the tenant springs into being. [Para 15] [602D-H]
2.4 Prior to the Amendment Act of 1969, on a plain literal
reading of Section 32-F(1)(a), it is true that a tenant had to
exercise this right within a period of one year from the expiry
of the one year spoken of in Section 31(3) of the Act. Literally
speaking, therefore, even if the tenant does not know when the
minor became major or when the widow died or transferred her
share, this right would cease on the expiry of one year. Realising
that this would cause immense hardship for want of knowledge
of a special fact which is only within the landlord's ken, the
legislature stepped in and amended Section 32-F. [Para 16 and
17] [603-A-C]
2.5 Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons
indicates that an amnesty scheme is necessary, in that a large
number of tenants in the Bombay area who are minors have lost
the right to purchase as they have failed to give the necessary
intimation within the period laid down by statute. Under this
amnesty scheme, if a tenant held land from a landlord who was
a minor and who had obtained majority before the
commencement of the 1969 Amendment and no intimation had
been given, two years extra was given from the date of
commencement of that Act in which such intimation may be
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
given. This statutory object, reflected in paragraph 2 of the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, is carried out by the proviso
to sub-section (1A) inserted by the 1969 Amendment Act into
Section 32-F. The words 'and for enabling the tenant to exercise
the right of purchase, the landlord shall send an intimation to
the tenant of the fact that he has attained majority, before the
expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to
terminate the tenancy under Section 31, were inserted into sub
section (1)(a). The addition of these words into Section 32-F(1)(a)
would show that the legislature, in keeping with the object
sought to be achieved statutorily divesting the landlord of his
title and handing over the land to the cultivating tenant, cannot
possibly be achieved unless a special fact within the knowledge
of the landlord alone is first intimated to the tenant, so that he
may then, with knowledge that the minor landlord has now turned
major, meaningfully exercise his right of purchase under the Act.
[Para 18, 19] [604-A-F]
2.6 The vast majority of cases which came to the notice
of the legislature were cases of landlords who were minor at the
time of the 1956 Amendment Act and who turned major only
thereafter. The amnesty scheme contained in sub-section (1A),
was, therefore, limited only to such cases. Unfortunately, the
legislature, when it inserted words into sub-section (1)(a) of
Section 32-F, appears to have forgotten that these words will
govern the right of tenants which has been postponed on
account of a landlord's disability. What appears to have been
missed is the fact that, apart from minors, there are two other
categories mentioned in Section 32-F(1)(a), all of whom would
stand on the same footing insofar as the tenant is concerned. It
would be wholly anomalous for a tenant to be told that if his
landlord happened to be a minor who has attained majority later,
he must first be intimated of this fact before he can meaningfully
exercise his right of purchase; whereas to a tenant who is
similarly situate when the landlord is a widow, in which case no
such intimation need be made, the tenant would suffer for no
fault of his as the tenant would have no knowledge of the date
of death of the widow (which is a special fact known only to her
family), such tenant's right of purchase being extinguished by
time. It seems that the draftsman of the 1969 Amendment was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
575
overwhelmed with the amnesty scheme laid down in Section 32F (1A), which then spilled over to the amendment made in Section
32-F(1)(a), thereby unintentionally leaving out the two other
categories of landlords, where the same intimation needs to be
made to the tenant, as the death of the widow and/or the ceasing
of disability are special facts known only to the landlord and his
family, just as in the case of a minor turning major. [Para 20]
[604-G-H; 605-A-C]
2.7 An absurd situation would be created by a literal reading
of Section 32-F(1)(a). The landlord being a widow is protected
until her death. After her death, one year is given to her
successors in interest to exercise the right of resumption. When
this does not take place one year is granted from the expiry of
this first one year to the tenant to exercise his statutory right.
This cannot be done because the tenant does not know of the
death of the widow. As a result, this very land which was not
required by the landlord's successors in interest for personal
cultivation, goes back to the landlord under Section 32-P in
cases in which the landlord either has no land within the ceiling
limit or some land which does not exhaust the ceiling limit. This
anomaly indeed turns the entire scheme of agrarian reform on
its head. Thus, it is to be seen whether the language of Section
32-F can be added to or subtracted from, in order that the
absurdity mentioned and the discrimination between persons
who are similarly situate be obviated. [Para 21] [605-D-F]
3. Given the fact that the object of the 1956 Amendment,
which is an agrarian reform legislation, and is to give the tiller
of the soil statutory title to land which such tiller cultivates; and,
given the fact that the literal interpretation of Section 32-F(1)(a)
would be contrary to justice and reason and would lead to great
hardship qua persons who are similarly circumstanced; as also
to the absurdity of land going back to an absentee landlord when
he has lost the right of personal cultivation, in the teeth of the
object of the 1956 Amendment, the words ".. of the fact that he
has attained majority.." are deleted. Without these words,
therefore, the landlord belonging to all three categories has to
send an intimation to the tenant, before the expiry of the period
during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy
under Section 31. [Para 36] [622-C-D]
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh & Ors. [1955] 2 SCR
457 ; Ramaswamy Nadar v. State of Madras [1958]
SCR 739 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat
Finance Co. & Anr. [1966] Supp. SCR 473 ; Budhan
Singh v. Nabi Bux [1970] 2 SCR 10 ; Commissioner
of Income Tax, Central Calcutta v. National Taj
Traders (1980) 1 SCC 370 : [1980] 2 SCR 268 ; K.P.
Verghese v. ITO (1981) 4 SCC 173 : [1982] 1 SCR
629 ; CIT v. J.H. Gotla (1985) 4 SCC 343 : [1985] 2
Suppl. SCR 711 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. Kodaikanal
Motor Union (P) Ltd. (1986) 3 SCC 91 : [1986] 2 SCR
927 ; Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohanlal
(1988) 2 SCC 513 : [1988] 3 SCR 384 ; Surjit Singh
Kalra v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 87 : [1991] 1
SCR 364 ; C.W.S. (India) Limited v. Commissioner of
Income Tax (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 296 : [1994] 2 SCR
247 ; Molar Mal v. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd. (2000) 4
SCC 285 ; Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7
SCC 273 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 324 - referred to.
Grey v. Pearson (1857) LR 6 HL Cas 61 ; Salmon v.
Duncombe (1886) 11 AC 627 - referred to.
4. The law may recognise degrees of harm, but in so doing
the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.
The Statement of the Objects and Reasons for the 1969
Amendment have been referred. Paragraph 2 thereof stated that
a large number of cases involving minor landlords had come to
the notice of the legislature, for which reason the amnesty
scheme mentioned in sub-section (1A) of Section 32-F was
enacted. However, what was forgotten by the draftsman when
the addition to Section 32-F(1)(a) was made was the fact that
Section 32F(1)(a) referred to three categories of landlords and
not only one. The words added by the 1969 amendment thus
gave relief to tenants only qua minor landlords and not the other
two categories. Obviously, the classification made in favour of
tenants of minor landlords as opposed to tenants of landlords of
the other two categories is a classification which is arbitrary in
nature. This being the case, such classification would ordinarily
have to be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. However, instead of striking down such
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
577
classification as a whole, what can be done is to strike down the
words "..of the fact that he has attained majority..", as a result
of which, what is added by the 1969 Amendment to Section 32F(1)(a) now ceases to be discriminatory, as it is applicable to
tenants of all three categories of landlords. Thus, in order to read
Section 32-F(1)(a) in conformity with Article 14, the words "..of
the fact that he has attained majority.." is eliminated so that the
intimation that is to be made by the landlord has to be made to
tenants of all the three categories of landlords covered by the
provision. [Para 39, 40, 44] [624-G-H; 627-A-D; 627-H; 628A]
Appa Narsappa v. Akubai Ganapati (1999) 4 SCC 453
- overruled.
Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan
(2008) 9 SCC 358 : [2008] 13 SCR 508 - partly
overruled.
Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai
(1995) 5 SCC 243 : [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 259 ; Sudam
Ganpat Kutwl v. Shevantabai Tukaram (2006) 7 SCC
200 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 682 - distinguished.
Hiralal P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
(2016) 10 SCC 165 : [2016] 9 SCR 515 ; Secretary,
Mahatama Gandhi Mission v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena
(2017) 4 SCC 449 ; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
(1983) 1 SCC 305 : [ 1983] 2 SCR 165 - relied on.
5. The submission made based on Section 14(1)(a) that
since a tenant is bound to pay the rent every year before the
31st May thereof, the tenant is bound to know that the person
to whom he is paying rent has since died and that, therefore,
knowledge cannot be brought in to the construction of Section
32-F need not detain this Court. On facts in the instant case,
the landlady was actually at Mumbai, whereas the tenant was at
Ratnagiri. Also, Section 14(1)(b) makes it clear that in case the
tenant fails to pay rent before the 31st May of every year, the
landlord must first give a three months' notice in writing
informing the tenant that he has not so paid the rent, within which
period the tenant is given time to remedy the breach. On facts,
there is nothing to show that any such notice was given. The
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
other submission that in the agricultural village world everyone
knows about everybody else and that, therefore, it may be
assumed that a villager at Ratnagiri will know about his
landlord's death equally cannot apply on the facts of this case
as the landlord lived and died in Mumbai. The other submission
about the reverse situation obtaining today as opposed to the
situation obtaining in 1956, namely, that it is tenants who are
now well off and landlords who are poor is again a perception
which has no bearing either on the facts of this case or the law
that needs to be laid down. [Para 49] [629-G-H; 630-A-C]
6. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. As a
result, the tenant's intimation of purchase of 2008 will now be
taken on record by the authorities under the Act, who may now
proceed under the Act to determine purchase price and its
payment consequent upon which the postponed right of the
tenant in this case to own the land will then come into being upon
the statutory conditions being met. [Para 50] [630-F-G]
R.L. Arora v Union of India [1964] 6 SCR 784 ; Shri
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar
[1959] SCR 279 ; In Re Special Courts Bill 1978
(1979) 1 SCC 380 : [1979] 2 SCR 476 ; Shayara
Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 : [ 2017] 7
SCR 797 ; Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of
Bombay AIR 1959 SC 459 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 489 ;
Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade
(1983) 3 SCC 437 : [1983] 3 SCR 237 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1959] Suppl. SCR 459
referred to
Para 10
[1983] 3 SCR 237
referred to
Para 12
[1955] 2 SCR 457
referred to
Para 24
[1958] SCR 739
referred to
Para 25
[1966] Supp. SCR 473
referred to
Para 26
[1970] 2 SCR 10
referred to
Para 27
[1980] 2 SCR 268
referred to
Para 28
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
579
[1982] 1 SCR 629
referred to
Para 29
[1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 711
referred to
Para 30
[1986] 2 SCR 927
referred to
Para 30
[1988] 3 SCR 384
referred to
Para 31
[1991] 1 SCR 364
referred to
Para 32
[1994] 2 SCR 247
referred to
Para 33
(2000) 4 SCC 285
referred to
Para 34
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 324
referred to
Para 35
[1964] 6 SCR 784
referred to
Para 37
[1959] SCR 279
referred to
Para 38
[1979] 2 SCR 476
referred to
Para 39
[2017] 7 SCR 797
referred to
Para 41
[2016] 9 SCR 515
relied on
Para 42
(2017) 4 SCC 449
relied on
Para 43
[1983] 2 SCR 165
relied on
Para 43
[1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 259
distinguished
Para 44
(1999) 4 SCC 453
overruled
Para 46, 50(iii)
[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 682
distinguished
Para 47, 50(iii)
[2008] 13 SCR 508
partly overruled
Para 48, 50(iii)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11774
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2014 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 10304 of 2013.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 11775-11798 of 2018.
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Aniruddha Joshi, Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ajit S. Bhasme, Sr. Adv., Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Shashank
Mangle, A. Bhasme, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
1. This case has been referred to a Three Judge Bench by a
detailed judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Vasant
Ganpat Padave v. Anant Mahadev Sawant (2019) 2 SCC 788. The
relevant facts that are necessary for determination of the controversy
before us are set out in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the referral order as
follows:
"3. One Balwant Sawant was landlord of Survey No. 92/2,
corresponding to new Survey No. 31 Hissa No. 2/10,
admeasuring about 0.01.3 H.R. at Village Padavewadi, Taluka
& District Ratnagiri. Balwant Sawant died on 10-5-1950 leaving
behind Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant, his widow as his legal heir
and representative. Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant, widow
became the owner of the said property. Her name was mutated
in the revenue records. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948 was amended by Act 15 of 1957. Section 32
as amended provided that on 1-4-1957 (Tillers' Day), every
tenant shall be deemed to have purchased from the landlord free
from all encumbrances the land held by him as a tenant. The
predecessor of the appellants were tenants prior to 1956-1957
i.e. prior to 1-4-1957. The proceedings for declaring the appellants
as purchaser under Section 32-G were initiated during the lifetime
of the landlady, Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant but the mutation
Entry No. 1341 recorded that since landlady Indirabai Balwant
Sawant is a widow, the proceedings as contemplated under
Section 32-G are suspended. On 12-5-1975, Smt Indirabai
Balwant Sawant executed last will and testament in favour of
Anant Mahadev Sawant, Respondent 1. Smt Indirabai Balwant
Sawant died on 7-5-1999. The name of Respondent 1 was
mutated in the revenue records on 29-2-2000, with regard to
which no notice was issued to the appellants, hence they were
not aware of either the death of Indirabai or mutation in favour
of Respondent 1.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
581
4. In the year 2008, when the appellants came to know that the
landlady has died and in her place, name of Respondent 1 has
been mutated, they filed an application on 5-9-2008 before
Respondent 2 - Additional Tahsildar & A.L.T. Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra for fixing the purchase price under Section 32-G
of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
(hereinafter referred to as "the 1948 Act"). Respondent 1 filed
reply and opposed the said application. Respondent 2 allowed the
application of the appellants by order dated 9-9-2011. Respondent
2 held that predecessors of the appellants were tenants prior to
1956-1957. Proceedings under Section 32-G for declaring the
appellants as purchasers were initiated during the lifetime of the
landlady and the same were suspended on 8-1-1964 during the
lifetime of the landlady being a widow. Respondent 2 fixed the
purchase price and directed the appellants to deposit the same
to enable issue of sale certificate in favour of the appellants.
Aggrieved against the order dated 9-9-2011, Respondent 1 filed
an appeal under Section 74 of the 1948 Act before Respondent
3, Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. Respondent 3
allowed the appeal vide its order dated 8-1-2013. Respondent 3
held that the appellant ought to have issued notice under Section
32-F within the time as prescribed and no notice having been
issued within the time as prescribed, the appellants have lost right
of purchase.
5. The appellants, aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional
Officer, filed a revision application before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal. There were other revisions filed by several
other tenants who were aggrieved by the order of the SubDivisional Officer. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by a
common order dated 20-4-2013 dismissed the revisions and
confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that applicants were under
legal obligation to give intimation expressing their desire to
purchase within time stipulated under Section 32-F, which having
not been given, no right of purchase is available to applicants.
Aggrieved against the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, writ petitions were filed by the appellants and several
other similarly situated tenants. All the writ petitions were
dismissed by common judgment dated 1-8-2014 [Arjun Hari
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Kamble v. Anant Mahadev Sawant, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom
4931] of the High Court, against which judgment, these appeals
have been filed."
2. After setting out various provisions of the Maharashtra
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act"), as amended, and after referring to various judgments of
this Court dealing, in particular, with Section 32-F of the Act, the
Division Bench then stated:
"30. The ratio of the abovenoted judgments can be restated in
the following words:
30.1. For a landlord suffering from a disability on the Tillers' Day
i.e. 1-4-1957, the deemed purchase shall be suspended.
30.2. Landlord suffering from a disability has a right under
Section 31(3) of the Act to give notice of termination of tenancy
and file an application for possession.
30.3. Under Section 31(3), a minor, within one year from the
date on which he attains majority; a successor-in-title of a widow
within one year from the date on which her interest in the land
ceases to exist; and landlord within one year from the date on
which his/her mental or physical disability ceases to exist, can
also give an application for termination of tenancy and possession.
30.4. Under Section 32-F, tenant has right to purchase where
landlord was minor or a widow or a person subject to mental or
physical disability within one year from the expiry of the period
during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy
under Section 31.
30.5. The tenant, in event, does not exercise his right of purchase
within the period as prescribed under Section 32-F(1)(a), his/her
right to purchase shall be lost.
31. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the landlady
died on 7-5-1999 and within one year thereafter her successorin-title did not exercise his right under Section 31(3) and thereafter
within one year tenant has not given any intimation for purchase
as contemplated by Section 32-F. The question to be answered
is as to whether in the above facts, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Revenue Tribunal as well as the High Court were right in their
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
conclusion that right of the tenant i.e. the appellant has lost, he
having not issued any intimation for purchase of the land within
one year from expiry of the period as contemplated under Section
31(3).
32. The ratio of this Court as noticed above, especially in the
judgments of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum [Appa
Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar, (1999) 4
SCC 443] , Sudam Ganpat Kutwal [Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v.
Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar, (2006) 7 SCC 200] and
Tukaram Maruti Chavan [Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti
Narayan Chavan, (2008) 9 SCC 358] , clearly supports the
submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the
appellants having not exercised their right to purchase under
Section 32-F(1) read with Section 32-F(1-A) within the time
prescribed, the right of purchase of the tenant is lost. But there
is one aspect of the matter which needs to be noted and has not
been considered in the above judgments rendered by two-Judge
Benches of this Court which we shall notice hereinafter."
The Division Bench then laid emphasis upon the Statement of
Objects and Reasons to the 1969 Amendment of the 1948 Act and
opined:
"37. Amendment in Section 32-F(1)(a) added by Act 49 of 1969
expressly covered a case of landlord who was minor and has
attained majority. Intimation by a minor landlord who has attained
majority has been made a statutory obligation of the landlord so
that tenant may exercise his right of purchase. The other two
categories which are a widow or a person subject to mental or
physical disability have not been expressly included in the
amendment incorporated by Act 49 of 1969. The Statement of
Objects and Reasons of the amendment given in 1969 as well
as the express provisions of such amendment are for the purposes
and object to enable the tenant to exercise right of purchase.
When for one category of landlord i.e. minor it is mandated that
he will intimate the tenant after he attained the majority so that
tenant may be enabled to exercise the right of purchase, we are
of the view that the same object has to be read in two other
categories of landlord that is the successor-in-title of a widow
and a landlord whose mental or physical disability has been
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
ceased. When the legislative object is to facilitate a tenant of a
disabled landlord after cessation of disability to exercise right of
purchase, the same benefit needs to be extended to other two
categories of disabled landlord. We do not find any distinction in
three categories of disabled landlords nor tenant of a landlord
who was a minor can be put on any higher footing as compared
to other landlords suffering from the above two disabilities. The
question may be asked that amendment only expressly included
the landlord who has attained majority to send intimation and the
legislature consciously did not include the other two categories
of landlord i.e. successor-in-interest of a widow and landlord of
a mental and physical disability ceases to exist. The Objects and
Reasons and express amendment made by Act 49 of 1969 were
with a view to enable the tenant to exercise his right of purchase.
The said legislative intendment is to be extended to all tenants
of landlords who were suffering from disability on the Tillers'
Day, whether successor-in-title of a widow or a landlord whose
mental or physical disability ceases. All the three categories of
tenants should be extended the same benefit and provision should
be interpreted so that all tenants may be enabled to exercise their
right of purchase effectively and in real sense.
38. As in the present case, the tenant's case is that he was
unaware of the death of the landlady since for the last several
years she was living in Bombay, the date of knowledge of death
of the landlady cannot be said to be an irrelevant factor and
unless the tenant is aware of the death of landlady or in case of
landlord suffering from physical or mental disability, how he will
exercise his right of purchase, is an important question. The 1948
Act and the amendments made by the 1969 Act were with intent
to facilitate tenants to exercise their right. The amendments by
Act 15 of 1957 was agrarian reform making tillers of the soil
the owners of the land which was done to achieve the object of
making all tillers of the soil as owners of the land. While
interpreting the provisions of Section 32-F(1-A) as well as Section
31(3), the purpose and object of the 1948 Act, amendments made
therein from time to time cannot be lost sight off.
39. When Section 32-F of the 1948 Act gives right to purchase
to a tenant whose landlord was suffering from a disability on
Tillers' Day, the exercise of right to purchase by such tenant has
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
to be interpreted in a manner so as to make the exercise of right
meaningful and effective. The abovesaid right cannot be defeated
on the ground that it was not exercised within the period
prescribed when the tenant is unaware as to when the period
has begun.
40. The period prescribed for exercising the right to purchase is
not a period of limitation but a reasonable period prescribed for
the exercise of a right. The knowledge of cessation of disability
of landlord by the tenant can only be commencement of the
period prescribed.
41. When a statute gives a right to a tenant, statute needs to be
interpreted in a manner so as to make the right workable,
effective and meaningful. Such right cannot be defeated unless
it is proved that tenant, even after knowing that disability has
ceased, does not exercise his right within the period prescribed.
42. A two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Appa
Narsappa Magdum [Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai
Ganapati Nimbalkar, (1999) 4 SCC 443] has expressly rejected
the submission that tenant had no intimation of the death of
landlady. Further judgments of this Court in Sudam Ganpat
Kutwal [Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram
Gulumkar, (2006) 7 SCC 200] and Tukaram Maruti Chavan
[Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan, (2008)
9 SCC 358] also laid down the same ratio. The judgments in the
above three cases were rendered by the two-Judge Benches in
which cases the amendments made by Act 49 of 1969 were
neither raised nor considered. We, thus, are of the view that the
ratio laid down in the above cases needs to be reconsidered and
explained in view of the object and purpose for which
amendments were made in Section 32-F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969
as noticed above. We, thus, refer to the following questions for
consideration of a larger Bench:
42.1. (1) Whether the object and purpose of amendment made
in Section 32-F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969 is also relevant and
applicable for exercise of right to purchase by a tenant of landlord
who was widow or suffering from mental and physical disability
on Tillers' Day?
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
42.2. (2) Whether the successor-in-interest of a widow is also
obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation of interest
of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right of
purchase.
42.3. (3) In the event the answer to above Question (1) or (2)
is in the affirmative, whether decision of this Court in Appa
Narsappa Magdum [Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai
Ganapati Nimbalkar, (1999) 4 SCC 443] , Sudam Ganpat
Kutwal [Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram
Gulumkar, (2006) 7 SCC 200] and Tukaram Maruti Chavan
[Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan, (2008)
9 SCC 358] needs reconsideration and explanation.
43. Let the papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice
for constituting a larger Bench. In the meantime, we direct that
the parties shall maintain the status quo."
3. We have heard Shri Aniruddha Joshi, learned Advocate for
the Appellant and Shri Ajit S. Bhasme, learned Senior Advocate for
the Respondent. Shri Joshi painstakingly took us through various
provisions of the 1948 Act and was at pains to point out that it was a
social welfare legislation enacted in furtherance of an Agrarian Reform
Programme and was, therefore, covered by Article 31A of the
Constitution of India. He laid great emphasis, in particular, upon the
Amendment Acts of 1956 and 1969. By the first mentioned Amendment
Act, the statutory scheme was to divest an absentee landlord of his
title and vest title directly in the cultivating tenant of agricultural land.
The landlord was given only a limited right to ask for resumption of his
land provided certain very stringent conditions were met, provided that
such application was made on or before Tillers' Day i.e.