Bombay High Court
Govinda Joti Parit, D/H. Smt Tanubai ... vs Janardan Shankar Kulkarni on 7 August, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:33742
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1335 OF 1992
Govinda Joti Parit, D/H. Smt. Tanubai W/o.
Govinda Parit, Since Deceased through Legal
Heirs Sonabai Kerba Parti @ Shinde and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Janardhan S. Kulkarni (Since Deceased)
Through Mangla Janardhan Kulkarni and Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1076 OF 1992
Govinda Joti Parit, D/H. Smt. Tanubai W/o.
Govinda Parit by their heirs Kerba Parti @
Shinde and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Janardhan S. Kulkarni (Since Deceased)
Through Mangla Janardhan Kulkarni and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. N.J. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Joel D'souza a/w. Ms. Nikita Kamble, Advocates i/by Mr.
Suresh M. Kamble for Respondents.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 07, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr.
D'souza, learned Advocate for Respondents.
2. This is a group of two Writ Petitions. Writ Petition No.1335
of 1992 is filed by Petitioners to challenge the judgment and order
dated 18.11.1989 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for
1 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
short 'MRT') in Revision Application No. MRT KP/76/1986 arising out
of Tenancy Appeal No.50 of 1981 confirming the judgment and order
dated 17.01.1977 passed by the Additional Tahasildar and Agricultural
Land Tribunal, Kagal in Case No. Banage 32-G 3/60 under the
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the
said Act'). Writ Petition No.1076 of 1992 is filed by the same
Petitioners to challenge the judgment and order dated 18.11.1989
passed by the MRT in Revision Application No. MRT KP/86/1986
arising out of Tenancy Appeal No.49 of 1981 confirming the judgment
and order dated 17.01.1977 passed by the Additional Tahasildar and
Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT), Kagal in Case No. Bange 32-G 3/77
under the said Act.
3. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Writ
Petitions are as under:-
4. Govinda Joti Parit is the tenant whereas Janardhan S.
Kulkarni is the original landlord of the subject land bearing Gat No.58
admeasuring 50Ares situated at village - Banage, Taluka Kagal, District
- Kolhapur (for short 'the suit land'). Both the parties have expired and
litigation is continued by their successors-in-title who are on record.
On tillers day the original landlady namely Satyabhama Narottam
Kulkarni was in possession of the said land. She was a widow and she
expired on 13.09.1958. She executed a Will dated 27.06.1955
2 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
bequeathing the suit land to the original Respondent who was her
nephew (son of her elder brother). She had no issues and legal heirs.
5. In 1960, suo motu Section 32G proceedings were
commenced by the ALT but the same were halted and not continued
due to various reasons. However in the year 1997, Tahsildar and ALT
suo motu commenced Section 32G proceedings and in those
proceedings two statements of tenant were recorded, firstly
preliminary statement was recorded on 19.11.1976 and secondly final
statement was recorded on 17.01.1977. Though in the preliminary
statement the tenant expressed his willingness to pay the purchase
price before the ALT, but at that time the landlord was not put on
notice and hence preliminary statement recorded was unilateral. When
the enquiry began, it was culminated after the final statement of the
tenant wherein he expressed his unwillingness to purchase the suit
land without any coercion of the landlord on him. Where upon
Section 32G proceedings were culminated in favour of the landlord. As
a result of the Sale Certificate dated 12.01.1981 was issued under
Section 32P in favour of the landlord and directions were passed to the
tenant to vacate the said suit land.
6. In the above background the tenant filed two Tenancy
Appeals namely Tenancy Appeal No.49 of 1981 and Tenancy Appeal
No.50 of 1981 before the SDO to challenge the 32G and 32P orders /
3 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
Sale Certificates. By common order dated 25.02.1986 both Tenancy
Appeals were dismissed. The successors-in-title of tenant therefore
filed two Revision Application No.76 of 1986 and Revision Application
No.86 of 1986 before the MRT. By common order dated 18.11.1989
the MRT dismissed both Revision Applications and upheld the order of
SDO in both Tenancy Appeals thereby upholding the 32G and 32P
order / Sale Certificate. Being aggrieved the tenant succeeded by his
successors-in-title filed the present two Writ Petitions namely Writ
Petition No.1335 of 1992 and Writ Petition No.1076 of 1992
maintaining a challenge to the judgment of MRT. Hence, both Petitions
are heard and decided together.
7. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners (Successors-in-title to the Tenant) has made the following
submissions:-
7.1. He would submit that the learned MRT erred in holding that
Petitioners were unwilling to purchase the suit land and wrongly came
to the conclusion that purchase of suit land had become ineffective as
held by the ALT. He would submit that the MRT ought to have relied
upon the preliminary statement of Petitioners recorded in the year
1976 wherein Petitioners expressed their readiness and willingness to
purchase the suit land under the said Act. He would submit that in that
view of the matter the prescribed procedure was vitiated by the ALT
4 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
while conducting the proceedings under Section 32G of the said Act.
7.2. He would submit that the Will executed by Satyabhama was
not registered and the original copy of the same was not produced
before the Authority on the basis of which Respondents claimed
ownership of the suit land and therefore suo motu proceedings under
Section 32G of the said Act commenced by Additional Tahasildar and
ALT were illegal and bad in law. He would submit that before the
learned ALT in the Tenancy Case, Respondents failed to produce the
death certificate of Satyabhama's husband to prove that she was a
widow on tiller's day i.e. 01.04.1957 and therefore the statement made
by Respondents ought not to have been relied upon for ascertaining
the fact that she was a widow on tiller's day. He would submit that
original tenant Govinda on behalf of Petitioners recorded his
preliminary statement on 19.11.1976 showing his readiness and
willingness to purchase the suit land, but it is also seen that a further
statement was recorded on 17.01.1977 in which he has expressed his
unwillingness to purchase the suit land. He would submit that the
second statement recorded by the original tenant Govinda was on
account of a fraud having been committed on him whereby he was
induced to make such a statement and this statement has been held
against Petitioners' case in the 32G proceedings before the Authorities
below. He would submit that once the preliminary statement of tenant
was recorded by Competent Authority namely the Additional
5 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
Tahasildar and ALT in the 32G proceedings, there was no need and
necessity to record his second statement thereafter which is held
against Petitioners. He would submit that Respondents have failed to
prove heirship of their predecessor to the subject suit land as per
provisions of Section 31(A)(D) of the said Act.
7.3. He would submit that it was not necessary for Petitioners to
comply with provisions of Section 32F(1)(A) of the said Act on account
of which the proceedings initiated under Section 32G against the
Petitioners are vitiated. He would submit that learned MRT failed to
appreciate the fact that while recording the second statement of
original tenant Govinda on 17.01.1977 fraud was practised on him
while doing so and therefore no reliance ought to have been placed on
the second statement. He would submit that Respondents failed in
their endeavour to prove that the original tenant was cultivating the
said land since he was a resident of Village Yelgud whereas the suit
land was situated at Village Banage.
7.4. In support of his submissions, Mr. Patil has referred to and
relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this
Court:-
(i) Shrikrishna Subhana Horambale and Ors. Vs. Shripad
Jiwaji Apate (deceased by L.R.'s) and Ors.1;
(ii) Vasant Ganpat Padave (Dead) by Legal Representative
1 AIR 1986 Bombay 86
6 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
and Ors. Vs. Anant Mahadev Sawant (Dead), through
Legal Representative and Ors.2;
(iii) Dayandeo Ganpat Jadhav Vs. Madhav Vitthal Bhaskar
and Ors.3; and
(iv) Rambhai Lallubhai Patel and Ors. Vs. Bai Kamla and
Ors.4.
7.5. He would contend that in the case of Shrikrishna Subhana
Horambale and Ors. (1st Supra), this Court has held that when the
tenant is in personal cultivation of the suit land and has repeatedly
expresses willingness to purchase the suit land and landlord has
expired in the meanwhile, then the Court has held that there is no
question of giving intimation to legal heirs of deceased landlord under
Section 32F of the said Act on the demise of the landlord and the right
of purchase does not become ineffective gets extinguish due to demise
of the landlord.
7.6. Next he would draw my attention to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Vasant Ganpat Padave (Dead) by Legal
Representative and Ors. (2nd Supra) and contend that in the said case
Supreme Court held that it would be wholly anomalous for a tenant to
be told that if the landlord is a widow, she must be first intimated of
the fact that tenant desires to meaningfully exercise his right of
purchase and the Supreme Court has held that no such intimation in
2 (2019) 19 SCC 577
3 (2005) 8 SCC 340
4 1995 Supp (3) SCC 615
7 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
such a case is required to be given.
7.7. He would argue that the scheme of 1948 Act namely the said
Act and in particular, the 1956 Amendment thereto which introduced
"tillers day" is on the premise that an absentee landlord's rights in the
land must give way to a cultivating tenant and on tiller's day the
landlord is divested of title and the tenant is vested with title
agricultural land which he cultivates by dint of his own effort. He
would submit that it is only in three exceptional cases that such
purchase becomes ineffective i.e. if the tenant fails to appear within
the time prescribed after notice is given to him or he appears and
declines purchase, or if the tenant fails to pay the entire purchase
price. He would submit that in the present case, the predecessor of the
Petitioners appeared before the Competent Authority and expressed his
desire to pay the purchase price, but it so happened that his second
statement was recorded in which he declined to pay the purchase price
and that statement has been upheld against Petitioners. He would
submit that the impugned judgment of the learned MRT suffers from
the aforesaid infirmity and deserve to be quashed and set aside and the
original predecessor-in-title of Petitioners is required to be declared as
tenant of the suit land.
8. PER CONTRA, Mr. D'souza, learned Advocate alongwith Mr.
Kamble appearing on behalf of the Respondents has made the
8 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
following submissions:-
8.1. He would submit that the main point contented and argued
by Mr. Patil is clearly answered in the impugned judgments. He would
submit that Satyabhama expired on 13.02.1958 and she had no legal
heirs. She executed a Will dated 27.06.1955 by which she bequeathed
the suit land to the original Respondent - Janardhan Shankar Kulkarni,
who was the son of her real brother. He would submit that ALT, Kagal
started 32G proceedings under the said Act and on due inquiry
concluded that purchase of suit land by the tenant had become
ineffective as tenant declined to pay the purchase price. Therefore the
order dated 17.01.1977 passed in Tenancy Case No.32G Banage 3/60
after duly recording the statement of the tenant in the presence of the
landlord came to be passed. He would submit that in this view of the
matter, when clear statement of the tenant was recorded before the
Trial Court i.e. ALT, Kagal, the SDO in Appeal has upheld the same
and dismissed the Appeal of the tenant since the facts are undisputed
even by the Petitioners. He would submit that in paragraph No.10 of
the impugned order, the learned MRT has returned a categoric finding
from the record that in the year 1976, 32G proceedings were again
started and on 19.11.1976 the tenant recorded his statement that he
has a right to purchase the suit land. However on that date the
landlord did not appear before the ALT and therefore the case was
adjourned to a future date. He would submit that thereafter on the
9 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
future date, tenant's statement was recorded on 17.01.1977 as stated
on page No.29 and in that statement he recorded that he was
unwilling to pay the purchase price of the suit land and therefore
relying upon such statement in the proceedings the Trial Court
declared the sale as ineffective.
8.2. He would next draw my attention to paragraph No.12 of the
impugned judgment wherein it is clearly held that the first statement
of the tenant which was recorded was in the nature of a preliminary
inquiry when the landlord was not even served with the notice and no
regular inquiry was made recording the proceedings under Section 32G
of the said Act and most importantly even the deceased tenant
Govinda was aware that Satyabhama's husband had expired about 6 -
7 years before and therefore the said landlady Satyabhama was a
widow on tiller's day.
8.3. The learned MRT has therefore from the record of the case
rightly concluded that it could not lie in the mouth of the tenant to
contend that the status of the landlady was not that of a widow on
tiller's since the date of demise of her husband was not known or
proved and his death certificate was not produced on record. That
apart, he would submit that it was also argued by tenant that heirship
of the original successor-in-title to the landlady was duly proved on the
basis of his heirship certificate which was not challenged by the tenant.
10 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
He would submit that the heirship certificate was issued to him on the
basis of the Will executed by the said Satyabhama in his favour. He
would also vehemently argue that in the present case inquiry under
Section 32G of the said Act was held as far back as in September 1960
and the said enquiry was postponed since the landlady was a widow
on tiller's day and in that view of the matter when the said enquiry
resumed in the year 1977, due process of law was followed and
statement of the tenant was recorded by the ALT.
8.4. He would persuade me to consider the findings returned in
paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment passed by the MRT to
submit that the tenant has categorically admitted the fact that he did
not inform the landlord by sending notice as he was not willing to pay
the purchase price of the suit land and at the end of his deposition on
17.01.1977 recorded that he had no desire to purchase the suit land
and that no coercion was exercised on him. He would submit that in
view of such statement having been recorded by the ALT i.e.
Competent Authority in the statutory proceedings, the learned MRT
has upheld the order dated 17.01.1977 passed under Section 32G of
the said Act alongwith the order dated 12.01.1981 passed under
Section 32P of the said Act and delivered the judgment dated
18.11.1989. Hence the same deserves to be upheld and the Petition be
dismissed.
11 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
9. I have heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioners and
Mr. D'souza, learned Advocate for Respondents and perused the record
of the case with their able assistance. Submissions made by them have
received due consideration of the Court.
10. Controversy in the present case is extremely narrow which is
seen from the impugned orders challenged before this Court. There are
proceedings under Section 32G as initiated as far back in the year 1960
under the provisions of said Act. These proceedings were kept on hold
after they were initiated in view of the suit land having been in
possession of said Satyabhama being landlady thereof. In 1976, the
learned ALT i.e. Agricultural Lands Tribunal commenced with 32G
proceedings. It is at this stage when proceedings commenced the
preliminary statement of the original tenant Govinda was recorded by
the ALT wherein the tenant showed his willingness to purchase the suit
land.
11. It needs to be mentioned herein that enquiry under Section
32G envisages recording of statement made by the tenant in the
presence of landlord after issuance of due notice to the landlord of the
statutory proceedings. This is primarily because by virtue of said
proceedings if the tenant cultivating said land on tiller's day agrees to
pay purchase price of said land then subject to hearing the landlord for
his objections the ALT will have to determine the 32G proceedings
12 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
appropriately. In the present case after recording of the preliminary
statement it is seen that under the 32G proceedings statement of
original tenant Govinda was recorded on 17.01.1977 in the presence of
legal heirs of the landlady Satyabhama. Admitted position on record is
that original tenant - Govinda made categorical statement that he was
not willing to purchase suit land. The Petitioners before me have
accepted this position. However, their argument is to the effect that
statement was made on 17.01.1977 should be disregarded and
previous statement should be considered. This is the first leg of
argument advanced by Mr. Patil. It needs to be stated herein that
deposition of the original tenant before the ALT took place in the year
1977 in the 32G proceedings and while deposing the original tenant
has waived not only his right to purchase suit land by offering
purchase price thereto but he has also waived noticed from the
landlord in respect of information pertaining to the landlady
Satyabhama becoming the successor-in-title to the suit land.
12. Another piece of argument advanced by Petitioners is that
the exact date of death of the landlord was not on record by the said
Satyabhama in order to prove that she was a widow and successor-in-
title to the landlord on tiller's day. What is crucial to be noted is the
fact that original tenant Govinda did not give notice for purchasing suit
land which sine qua non for initiating and culminating 32G
proceedings under the said Act and most importantly waived said
13 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
notice in view of he being unwilling to purchase said land. Once this
was the position then sequitur of this was that an order under Section
32P came to be passed on 12.01.1981. It needs to be noted that order
under Section 32P is in consequence of the order passed under Section
32G of the said Act. What is more clinching is the fact that when
statement of the original tenant was recorded, he has categorically
admitted that he is not under any influence of the landlord and
therefore his unwillingness to purchase suit land should be recorded.
Once the tenant waives his right to give notice of purchase, deposes in
the statutory enquiry before the ALT - Competent Authority that he is
not under the influence of landlord to make statement that he is
unwilling to purchase suit land naturally sequitur of these events and
instances is under Section 32G order passed by the ALT. Said order
dated 12.01.1981 passed by the ALT, Kagal in the tenancy case and
upheld by the learned SDO directing handing over possession of suit
land to the landlord dated 25.02.1986 therefore cannot be faulted
with.
13. Second limb of argument which is vehemently argued by Mr.
Patil pertains to a issue which was not the subject matter of the
proceedings before the Courts below. While relying upon a decision in
the case of Shrikrishna Subhana Horambale and Ors. (1st Supra) Mr.
Patil would contend that once the tenant has expressed his willingness
to purchase suit land, then it is not necessary on the part of ALT to
14 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
record his statement repeatedly or more than once since there is no
such provisions envisaged under the said Act which requires recording
of statement of tenant more than once. He would submit that
statement of original tenant - Govinda recorded on 19.11.1976 should
be considered sacrosanct and the only statement for arriving at a
decision in the 32G proceedings. He would also submit that there is no
provision in the said Act which legally requires or obliges tenant to give
notice or intimation of willingness to purchase to the successor-in-title
of the deceased landlord. Mr. Patil would have been right if the
position and status in the present case would have been as argued by
him. The record clearly shows that the first statement of the original
tenant which was recorded on 19.11.1976 was not a statement while
deposing in the 32G proceedings. It is seen that 32G proceedings were
commenced on 19.11.1976 and when the said statement was recorded
landlord was not even issued a notice as contemplated under Section
32G of the said Act. The landlord never appeared at the time of
recording of the statement as on 19.11.1976. Case was adjourned from
time to time when notice was issued to the landlord and only when he
appeared on 17.01.1977 and the proceedings commenced. The
deposition of the original tenant was recorded in the 32G proceedings.
It is not merely statement of unwillingness to purchase suit land which
was recoded. Tenant also unequivocally recorded the fact that there
was no coercion or pressure or influence on him by the landlord for
15 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
recording his statement of he being unwilling to purchase the suit land.
hence in such a situation this cannot be equated with the case of
recording the deposition and statement of the original tenant twice for
the same caus of action. Therefore I am unable to accept the
submission made by Mr. Patil of statement of original tenant being
recorded twice over in the present case which is not contemplated
under the provisions of said Act.
14. The procedure under 32G is of the more important for
consideration in the present case. Under proceedings under 32G, the
Tribunal is required to issue notice and determine the purchase price
to be paid by the tenant by following due procedure prescribed under
under Sections 32G(1) to 32G(5).
14.1. Under Section 32G(1) it is declared that Tribunal which has
issued notice individually to each such tenant, landlord and also as far
as practicable, to other person calling upon each of them to appear
before it on the date specified in the public notice. What this provision
envisages is that notice have to be issue to each of the concerned
persons for appearing before the Tribunal on a specified date. If these
provisions is to be looked at in the facts of the present case then the
first statement which is recorded by the ALT of the original tenant is
before appearance of the landlord before the Tribunal on the specified
date.
16 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
14.2. Thereafter under Sections 32G(2) and (3) it is stated that
Tribunal shall record in the prescribed manner statement of tenant
whether he is or is not willing to purchase the land held by him as a
tenant and if any tenant makes a statement that he is not willing to
purchase the land, then Tribunal shall by an order in writing declare
that such tenant is not willing to purchase the land and that the
purchase is ineffective.
15. In the present case it is seen that provisions of Section
32G(2) and (3) were carried out by the Tribunal on 17.01.1977 when
the statement of original tenant was recorded of he not willing to
purchase the suit land. Once this position is envisaged under law then
provisions of Section 32P kick in. Section 32G empowers Tribunal to
issue notices and determine price of land to be paid by the tenant and
states that if tenant makes a statement that he is not willing to
purchase said land then Tribunal has to held formal enquiry for
disposal of the suit land in the manner prescribed in Sub-section (2)
thereof. In the present case it is seen that order dated 12.01.1981
passed under Section 32P is passed under the provisions of 32P(2)(b).
Once the statutory provisions has stated have been followed to the hilt
of the Competent Authority whatsoever can be found in the
consequence of statutory Authorities. Hence in view of aforesaid
observations and findings I am of the opinion that impugned judgment
and order dated 18.11.1989 passed in Revision Application No. MRT
17 of 18
WP.1335.1992 + WP.1076.1992.doc
KP/76/1986 arising out of Tenancy Appeal No.50 of 1981 is a
reasoned and cogent order. Findings returned in paragraph Nos.9 to 15
of the said judgment do not call for any interference of this Court.
Impugned Judgment dated 18.11.1989 is upheld. Resultantly both
Writ Petitions fail.
16. Writ Petition Nos.1335 of 1992 and 1076 of 1992 are
dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
17. After the order is pronounced in open Court, Mr. Patil,
learned Advocate for Petitioners has requested the Court to stay the
order to enable the Petitioners to test validity of the order in the
Superior Court. His request for stay is granted. Present order is stayed
for a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this order.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
18 of 18
