Tarachand landlord was under numberdisability as envisaged by sec.
5 before the High Court Acting upon the will of Tarachand, Ashoklal got his name mutated in the revenue record in respect of suit land in his favour as owner.
This order was companyfirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision as per its judgment dated July 16, 1973.
Hence these two appeals by special leave.
The present petitioners after unsuccessfully appealing to the Assistant Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal u s 76 of the Tenancy Act, reached the High Court under Article 2 27, A parallel proceeding was initiated by the respondent u s 84 of the Tenancy Act for recovery of possession which was illegally taken from him.
The Tribunal accordingly determined the purchase price.
This companytention found favour with the Tribunal which overlooked the legal position that Janardhan had become the deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957.
Landlord Tarachand died on August 12, 1959.
1 and one Haribhav and the latter in turn transferred his interest in favour of other petitioners, Misled by the two orders of the Tribunal holding that the sale was postponed Janardhan served a numberice on oct.
29 of the Tenancy Act, the tenant Janardan had made a Statement on October 5, 1967 that he had numberobjection to handing over possession of the land to A the land to the landlord as he was old and companyld number cultivate the land personally.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 4th September, 1980 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
After the death of Janardhan an enquiry was companymenced to ascertain whether Janardhan the deceased tenant had already become the deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957 and that all the subsequent proceedings were Abington void.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court by a companymon judgment dismissed bottle the petitions of the petitioners holding that as Janardhan had become the deemed purchaser on the tillers day i. e. April 1, 1957 all subsequent proceedings u s 32 F were ab initio void and without jurisdiction and nullity is the eyes of law.
The landlord from the date of statutory sale is only entitled to receive the purchase price as determined by the Tribunal u s 32 G. In other words, the landlord ceases to be landlord and the tenant becomes the owner of the land and companyes in direct companytact with the State.
The Assistant Collector held that occupation of the suit land by the petitioners was companytrary to the provisions of law as Janardhan had already become the deemed purchaser and numbertitle companyld be acquired by the petitioners from the sale by Ashoklal and therefore the respondent is entitled to recover possession.
It is an admitted position that on April 1, 1957 Tarachand was the landlord and Janardhan was the tenant.
32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended from time to time provided that on the 1st day of April, 1957 styled as the tillers day every tenant shall subject to other provisions of the section and the provisions of the next succeeding sections be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the same date the land held by him as a tenant if other companyditions of the section are satisfied.
Janardhan died on November 29, 1976 leaving respondent his son as the sole heir.
The Tenancy Avail Karkoon entertained the petition which it had numberjurisdiction because there was numbersubsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between Ashoklal and Janardhan as Janardhan had already become deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957.
A Sec.
Before his death, landlord Tarachand had executed a will and bequeathed the suit land to Ashoklal Gugale who was petitioner No.
On the date of mutation, Ashoklal was a minor.
The direction was issued to hared over possession to the respondent.
This was done to achieve the object of removing all intermediaries between tillers of the soil and the State.
Thus by operation of law, Janardhan, who was the tenant of the land on the tillers day became the deemed purchaser thereof.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the same day, surprisingly the Tenancy Aval Karkoon also recorded the statement of present respondent that in the lifetime of his father Janardhan he had numbertitle to the land involved in the dispute.
Two petitions were moved by transferee petitioners in the High Court of Bombay against two orders one of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in a proceeding u s 32 G and another in a proceeding u s 84 against the present respondent.
This wholly null and void order enabled the minor landlord to sell the land by a registered deed on Nov. 13, 1967 to the petitioner No.
A revision petition and a writ petition to the High Court at the instance of the petitioners failed.
The direction for restoring possession to Janardhan was rightly given.
Ahmendnagar, belonged to Tarachand Chopra Janardhan, the father of the respondent was admittedly the tenant of this land on April 1, 1957.
R. Lalit, C.B. Singh and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants.
2155 of 1979.
Jitendra Sharma for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Land bearing Survey No.
174 of 1981.
1052 admeasuring 16 acres situated within the revenue limits of Village Sonai Taluka Nawasa Distt.
There were some proceedings in between u s 84 which are hardly relevant The Tribunal went into the matter in depth, examined all proviso orders and finally reached an affirmative companyclusion that on April 1, 1957 Tarachand was the recorded landlord and being under numberdisability and Janardhan being tenant of the land, by operation of law, Janardhan become the deemed purchaser and all subsequent proceedings were null, void and number est.
The authority u s 84 held that petitioners were number entitled to retain possession as their occupation was companytrary to the provisions of the Tenancy Act and they had acquired numbertitle to the land by the purported sale by Ashoklal.
