The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition in which the view taken by the SDM that the claim as made by the petitioners in their application under Section 32F was barred by limitation was challenged.
A single judge bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice G.S. Kulkarni, in view of the settled proposition of law, held that the Petitioner’s application is clearly hit by the provisions of Section 32(1A) of the BTAL Act.
Brief Facts:
It was the case of the Petitioners that Zumberlal and the family members of his brothers partitioned the joint family properties. On 20 September, 1963 the land in question, subject matter of the present proceedings, was transferred in the name of one subhashchandra Jawaharlal Bora (son of Jawaharlal). In the meantime, proceeding under Section 32 G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“BTAL Act”) for the determination of the price of land to be paid by the tenant for the purchase of the land was initiated by the tenant, however, since as Subhashchandra was a minor on the tillers day, as per the provisions of Section 32 F of the BTAL Act, the tillers day was deferred till he attained majority.
On 26 April, 2005, an application under Sections 32F(1)(1a), 32(2) and 32G of the BTAL Act was made by the petitioners before Tahsildar, Dindori. The respondents opposed such an application by filing their reply. The Tahsildar adjudicated the application filed by the petitioners and by an order dated 10 November, 2010, the Tahsildar allowed the application of the petitioners by fixing the purchase price of Rs. 874/-. By an order dated 10 December, 2012, the SDO reversed the findings of the Tahsildar and set aside the order dated 10 November, 2010 passed by the Tahsildar.
The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 10 December, 2012 passed by the SDO approached the MRT in the revision application in question. In this petition, the Petitioner challenged an order dated 09 December, 2013 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (“MRT”) whereby a revision application as filed by the petitioners against an order dated 10 December, 2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nashik Division, Nashik, was rejected.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that findings, as recorded by the Tahsildar, were appropriate as the petitioners had all legal rights to maintain their application under Section 32 G of the BTAL Act, before the Tahsildar on 26 April, 2005. Thus, the orders which the SDO and MRT pass, Mumbai are liable to be set aside.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that there was certainly an issue of limitation that had come in the way of the petitioners to succeed in their application under Section 34 G of the BTAL Act, considering the clear provision of Section 32F(1A), read with 32 G of the BTAL Act. The reliance was placed on the case of Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 2164 in which it was held that such an application could not have been maintained at any point of time as there was an embargo of a limitation of two years to make an application applicable in the present facts.
Observations of the Court:
This Court was of the opinion that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai (supra) wherein the Supreme Court in interpreting the proviso below sub-section (1A) of the Section 32F as inserted by Maharashtra Act No.49 of 1969 which provides that if a tenant holding land from a landlord ( who was a minor and has attained majority before the commencement of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act,1969) has not given intimation as required by sub-section (1A) of Section 32F.
However, being in possession of the land on such commencement is desirous of exercising the right conferred upon him under sub-section (1), he may give such intimation within a period of two years from the commencement of the Act.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that a notice was issued on 31 March, 2005 for fixing purchase price of the subject land and the application was thereafter made on 26 April, 2005 before Tahsildar, Dindori under Sections 32F(1)(1a), 32(2) and 32G of BTAL Act. Thus considering the above position in law, this Court held the Petitioner’s application was clearly hit by the provisions of Section 32(1A) of the BTAL Act.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order.
Case Title: Shri. Shankar Pandu Bharsat & Ors. Vs Shri. Anand Subhashchandra Bora & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G.S. Kulkarni
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 3413 OF 2014
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Harshad Inamdar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Karandikar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
