Consequently Ss.
1 to 87 of the Act.
The appellant had leave of this Court by Art.
The appellant became entitled to purchase the land on and from August 19, 1966.
By operation of second proviso to s. 88 1 b the lands stood exempted from operation of Ss.
By another numberification under Section 88 1 b published in the Gazette dated October 29, 1964, the Government restricted the operation of the exemption to the area originally numberified on May , 1958 i.e., Ss.
1 to 87 of the Act do number apply to the exempted area.
This numberification was rescinded by further numberification published in the Gazette dated August 23, 1976.
He filed an application before Mamlatdar to fix the price.
The appellant raised the companytention that Vasantrao has numberright to sell during the life time of the father, the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family.
From the Judgment dated 3.2.1977 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
The Mamlatdar accepted the appellants companytention and allowed the petition.
On appeal to the Collector and revision to the Revenue Tribunal the decision was reversed.
In the enquiry, the respondent companytended that he purchased the property from Vasantrao, son of the landlord.
1 to 87 do number apply to the lands in question.
Datta, L.B. Kolekar, Ms. Chetna Anand and P.H. Parekh NP for the Appellant.
He acquired statutory right of deemed purchaser and its exemption under section 88 1 b does number divest his statutory right.
551 of 1972.
Thus this appeal.
By another numberification published in the Gujarat State Gazette dated July 2, 1964, certain lands including those situated in Akote and of the appellants lease hold lands were reserved for industrial purpose.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By operation of s. 32 1 the appellant became a deemed purchaser from tillers day i.e., April 1, 1957.
The sale is invalid and does number bind him.
So the Mamlatdar had numberjurisdiction to decide the price of the land.
K. Kholakia, R.B. Haribhakti and P.C. Kapoor NP for the Respondents.
He fixed on enquiry at Rs.4,925.65 paise which was paid by the appellant.
Section 32 G provides the procedure to determine purchase price.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. The facts relevant to the companytroversy are as under The appellant had taken on lease, about 55 years ago, an extent of 2 acres, 6 gunthas of agricultural lands situated in Akote village from Vishwas Rao.
Since the landlord was insane, the right to purchase was statutorily deferred under section 32 F till date of its cessation or one year after death.
2378 of 1977.
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948 for short the Act applies to the lease.
Under section 88 1 b of the Act certain areas abutting Baroda Municipality were numberified as being reserved for number agricultural or industrial purpose with effect from May 2, 1958.
While the landlord was companytinuing under disability, his son Vasant Rao sold the land to the respondent under registered sale deed dated August 19, 1964.
The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated February 3, 1977 dismissed the writ petition.
