| Headnote |
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – ss.63, 43 & 14, 17, 17B, 27, 29, 32, 32A, 32B, 32F, 32H, 32I, 32O, 32P, 32PP, 32PPP, 32QQ, 32R, 32U, 33(1), 63A, 64, 84C, 88B, 88E – Agricultural land was in the cultivating possession of a tenant, who became deemed purchaser under the Act as he was cultivating the land on tiller’s day – Land bequeathed through Will in favour of appellant – However, it was found that the appellant was not an agriculturist and the disposal by way of Will in his favour was contrary to s.63 – Land was declared to be vested in the State – Division Bench inter alia held that s.63 bars the transfer of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist for non-agricultural purpose unless permission is obtained from Collector/authorised officer – Held: Provisions of the Act intend to confer the advantage of statutory purchase upon a cultivating tenant, and see that “the tiller of the land” is conferred ownership w.r.t the lands cultivated by him as well as the dwelling house occupied by him – In cases where the tenant is unable to exercise the right of purchase because his holding would go beyond ceiling limit, the land would not revert to the landlord, but in terms of s.32P, it must come to the persons or entities listed in the priority list (includes agricultural labourers, landless persons) – If a tenant or any other person from the priority list is conferred ownership in respect of the agricultural land or when a landlord is allowed to retain the land surrendered by his tenant, each of them is obliged to cultivate the land personally – In case any of them is unwilling, the land must be given to those who principally depend upon agricultural operations for their sustenance – If a person is a beneficiary of such statutory purchase and wishes to transfer his holding, the law obliges that he must take prior sanction from the Collector – A transfer inter vivos would normally be for consideration where the transferor may get value for the land but the legislation requires previous sanction of the concerned authority so that the transferee can step into the shoes of transferor and carry out all the obligations – As against this, if a testamentary disposition which does not have the element of consideration is to be permitted, and if it is assumed that ss.43 & 63 do not get attracted, the land can be bequeathed to a total stranger and a non-agriculturist who may not cultivate the land himself leading to engagement of somebody as a tenant on the land – Legislative intent to do away with absentee landlordism; to protect the cultivating tenants and to establish direct relationship between the cultivator and the land would then be rendered otiose – In the context of the entire scheme, the term “assignment” used in s.43 must include testamentary disposition as well – View taken by Division Bench is correct – In pith and substance, the legislation and the concerned provisions are completely within the competence of State Legislature – Interpretation of Statutes – Doctrine of pith and substance – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy. |
