Holding

The intimation requirement under Section 32‑F(1A) is mandatory; non‑compliance forfeits the tenant’s purchase right and makes him liable to summary eviction under Section 32‑P(1).

Summary

The tenant, Anna Bhau Magdum (deceased), leased agricultural land that was gifted to a minor landlord, Babasaheb Desai, in 1953. Under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, tenants were deemed to purchase land on "tiller's day" (1 April 1957) unless the landlord was a minor, widow, or disabled, in which case Section 32‑F required the tenant to give a written intimation within a prescribed period. The landlord attained majority on 17 January 1965, but the tenant failed to send the required intimation by the deadline of 17 January 1967 and also missed the extended deadline of 17 October 1971 introduced by the 1969 amendment. The Tribunal held the tenant’s purchase right forfeited and ordered summary eviction under Section 32‑P(1); the High Court affirmed this, and the Supreme Court dismissed the tenant’s appeal, confirming that the intimation requirement is mandatory and its breach extinguishes the purchase right.

Issues considered

The tenant’s right to purchase under Section 32 is automatic or conditioned on compliance with Section 32‑F provisions.
Whether the intimation requirement in Section 32‑F(1A) is mandatory or merely directory.
Whether failure to give the intimation renders the tenant liable to summary eviction under Section 32‑P(1).
The effect of the 1969 amendment on the landlord’s prior attainment of majority.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 31, s. 32, s. 32-F, s. 32-G, s. 32-P
Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969 (Amendment)

Subjects

tenancyagricultural landright of purchaseminor landlordintimation requirementsummary evictionSection 32-FSection 32-PBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act

Judgment

ANNA BHAU MAGDUM, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL A
REPRESENTATIVES
v
BABASAHEB ANANDRA DESAI

JULY 20, 1995 B
[S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 :

Sections 32-F, 32-G-Landlord a minor-Tenant's right to purchase the c
land-Procedure to be f ollowed--Case governed by S.32-F-Not following the
prescribed procedure-Effect of-Held: S.35-F Mandatory in natur~Tenant
having failed to exercise right ofpurchase conferred on him, liable to summary
eviction.
D
'6' was the owner of certain agricultural land, which he leased out
to 'A' the predecessor in title to the appellants. By a gift deed dated
September 4, 1953, B gifted the said land to the respondent respondent
who was a minor at that time. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948 was amended in 1956 to confer special rights and
privileges on tenants. The amended Section 32 declared that on 1st April, E
1957 described as tillers day, every tenant satisfying the requirements of
clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have purchased
from his landlord the land held by him as tenant free from all encumbran-
ces subsisting thereon on the said land held by him as a tenant. Section
32-F contains special provisions in cases where the landlord was a minor, F
or a person subject to any mental or physical disability on 1st April, 1957.
The respondent attained majority on January 17, 1965. Proceedings under
Section 35-G were started in respect of the said land in 1960, but were
dropped in 1966, on the ground that the landlord was a minor. Fresh
proceedings were.started in 1975 and the Tribunal held that the tenant had
list his right to purchase the suit land and declared that the purchase of G
the land had become ineffective under s.32- G(3) of the Act. The said order
was set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for
holding a fresh inquiry. The Tribunal held that in view of section 32-F(lA),
the tenant could exercise his right of purchase by sending an intimation
upto January 17, 1967 and since the tenant had failed to send such an H
259
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A intimation his right of purchase stood forfeited. It was also held that by
the amendment incorporated in Section 32-F(lA) by the 1969 Amendment
a further opportunity was given ·to the tenant to exercise his right to
purchase by sending the intimation upto October 17, 1971 and that even
during this period of extension the tenant did not avail of the opportunity
and in the circumstances the right of purchase of the tenant became
B automatically ineffective and he had become liable for summary eviction
under section 32-P(l). The appeal filed by the teµant against the said order
was dismissed by the Sub-divisional Officer. The revision application filed
by the tenant against the judgment of the Sub-divisional Officer was
dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The writ petition filed
c by the tenant has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal.
..
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
.·
HELD 1. In the instant case the landlord was a minor on April 1,
D 1957, the tillers' day, and the right of the tenant to purchase the land is
governed by provisions of section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricul-
tural Lands Act, 1948. In clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 32-F it
was prescribed that where the landlord is a minor or a widow or a person
subject to any mental or physical disability the right of the tenant to
purchase such land under section 32 would be available within one year
E from the expiry of the period during which the landlord was entitled to
terminate the tenancy under section 31. The said period as prescribed in
sub-section (3) of section 31 was one year from the date on whieh the minor
attains majority or the interest of the widow in the land ceases to exist or
the mental or physical disability of the person cease to exist. Under Clause
p (lA) the tenant who was desirous to exercise his right conferred on him
under sub-section (1) was required to give an intimation in that behalf to
the landlord as well as to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in the
prescribed manner within the period specified in that sub-section, namely,
within one year after the expiry of the period during which the landlord
was entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 3J.. The tenant was,
G therefore, required to give notice before the expiry 'Of the period of two
years from the date minor landlord attained majority. [266-H, 267-A-D]

2.1. As a result of the amendment introduced in clause (a) of
sub-section (1) of section 32-F, the landlord is required to send an intima·
H tion to the tenant of the fact that he had at~ined majority arid the said
AB. MAGDUM v. B.A. DESAI 261

intimation had to be sent before the expiry of the period during which the A
said landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31. This
provision appears -to have been inserted with a view to enable the tenant
to know the date on which the landlord has attained majority so that he
can exercise the right conferred on him and send the necessary notice as
required under sub-section (lA) of Section 32.F. Since the respondent
B
landlord had attained majority prior to the insertion of this provision, it
has no application in the present case. The proviso that has been inserted
in sub-section (lA) of section 32-F conferred further benefit on a tenant
who had failed to give intimation as required by sub-section (lA), but was
in possession of the land on the date of the commencement of the Amend-
ment Act of 1969 and who was desirous to exercise the right conferred upon C
him under sub-section l(a) of Section 32. Such a tenant was given further
opportunity to give the intimation as required under sub-section (lA)
within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the
Amendment Act 1969, i.e., upto October 17,1971. [268-B-D]

2.2. Io the present case it is not disputed that the tenant did not send D
any intimation as required by sub-section l(a) either upto January 17, 1967
or even upto October 17, 1971 as provided by tlte proviso under sub-sec-
tion (lA) of section 32-F. Moreover, the tenant in his statement given in
August 25, 1960. before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal stated that he was
aware thfit the respondent-landlord would be attaining majority on E
January 17, 1965. Thus there was non-compliance on the part of the tenant
with the provisions of sub-section (lA) of section 32· F of the Act and on
that basis it has to be held that the tenant could not avail the right of
purchase conferred under section 32 read with Section 32-F of the Act.
[268-F-G]
F
3. The provisions of S.32(1) and 32-F indicate that there is no
automatic purchase of the land by the tenant in cases where the landlord
happens to be a minor or a widow or a person subject to any mental. or
physical disability and the said right of purchase can be availed by the
tenant if he complies with the requirements of section 32-F. [269-E]
G
4. Apart from the use of the word "shall" in sub-section (lA) in
Section 35-F an indication about the mandatory nature of the said
provision is also given by the proviso to sub-section (lA) inserted in 1969
whereby the tenant who had failed to give an intimation as required by
sub-section (lA), but was in possession of the land on the date of commen· H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2S.C.R.

A ct:m~nt of the Amendment Act of 1969 and was desirous of exercising the
,right conferred under sub-section l(a), was permitted to give such intima-
tion within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the
Amendment of 1969. Further, the consequence for non-compliance with the
provisions in sub-section (lA) of Section 32-F are laid down in section
32-P(l) wherein it is provided that where a tenant fails to exercise the right
B to purchase the land held by him within the specified period under sections
32-F the Tribunal may sub motu or on an application made in this behalf
after holding a formal inquiry direct that the land shall be disposed of in
the manner provided in sub-section (2). Such a direction could provide for
summary eviction of the tenant. Therefore, the requirement regarding
c intimation by the tenant to the landlord prescribed under sub-section (lA)
of Section 32-F is mandatory in nature and the failure on the part of the
tenant in the present case to give such an intimation to the landlord within
the prescribed period has resulted in the tenant having failed to avail the
right to purchase conferred ·on him and it has been rightly held that the
D tenant having failed to exercise the right to purchase conferred on him by
the Act was liable to summary eviction under section 32- P(l) of the Act.
(270-E-H, 271-A-B]
Amrit Bhikaji Kale & Ors. v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade & Anr.,
(1983) 3 sec 437, distinguished.
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2590 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.94 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 2435 of 1981.
F S.B. Wad, Nikhil Nayyar for Mrs. J.S. Wad for the Appellants.

S.V. Deshpande and Pramit Samena for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G S.C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
the judgment and order dated April 8, 1994 of the High Court of Bombay
in Writ Petition No. 2435 of 1981. It raises a question involving interpreta-
tion of the provisions contained in sections 32-F .and 32-G of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act 1948. (hereinafter referred to as 'the
H Act').
A.B. MAGDUM v. BA DESAI [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 263

Vijay Mala Jaisingrao Bhosale (for short 'Bhosale') was the owner of A
agricultural land bearing Survey No. 178/1 measuring 1 acre 34 gunthas
situate at village Shirte in District Kolhapur of the State of Maharashtra.
The said land was leased out to Anna Bhau Magdum, the predecessor in
title to the appellants. By a gift deed dated September 4, 1953 Bhosale
gifted the said land to the respondent herein, Babasaheb Anandrao Desai. B
The respondent was a minor at the time - his date of birth being 17th
January, 1947. By Bombay Act 13 or 1956 the Act was amended to confer
special rights and privileges on tenants. By virtue of section 32, as amended,
it was declared that on 1st April 1957, described as "the tillers" day", every
tenant satisfying the requirements of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) C
shall be deemed to have purchased from his landlord the land held by him
as tenant free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon the said land held
by hiin as a tenant. This was, however, subject to the provisions of part II
of Chapter III of the Act, viz., Sections 32A to 32-R. Section 32-G lays
down the procedure for determining the price of the land to be paid by
the tenant and section 32-F contains special provisions in cases where the D
landlord was a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to any ment~l or
physical disability on 1st April, 1957. The respondent attained majority on
January 17, 1965. Proceedings under section 32-G of the Act were started
in respect of the said land in 1960, but in view of the fact that the landlord
was a minor the said proceedings were dropped by an order dated 2nd E
September, 1966 passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal, Shirole. There-
after, in 1975, fresh proceedings under section 32-G were started before
the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Shirole. After
making the necessary inquiry the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural
Lands Tribunal passed an order dated August 27, 1975 holding that the
tenant has lost his right to purchase the suit land and declared that the
F
purchase of the land by the tenant has become ineffective under section
32-G(3) of the Act. The said order was set aside on appeal by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Tulsi Project, Kolhapur by order dated February
21, 1977 and the matter was remanded to the Additional Tehsildar and
Agricultural lands Tribunal for holding a fresh inquiry. Thereafter, the G
Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural lands Tribunal, Shirole passed the
order dated March 19, 1980, whereby it was declared that tenant's purchase
was ineffective and it was directed that the land should be disposed of by
holding further inquiries under section 32-G (1). It was held that in view
of section 32-F (lA), the ter.ant could exercise his right of purchase by H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A sending an intimation upto January 17, 1967 and since the tenant had failed
to sent such an intimation his right of purchase stood forfeited. It was also
held that by the amendment incorporated in Section 32-F(lA) by
Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969 a further opportunity was given to the tenant
to exercise his right of purchase by sending the intimation upto October
17, 1971 and that even during this period of extension the tenant did not
B avail of the opportunity and in the circumstances the right of purchase of
the tenant became automatically ineffective and he had become liable for
summary eviction section 32-P(l). The appeal filed by the tenant against
the said order of the Additional Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal
was dismissed by the Sub-divisional Officer; Karvir Division, Kolhapur by
C judgment dated September 10, 1980. The revision application filed by the
tenant against the said judgment of .the sub-division Officer was dismissed
by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by judgment dated March 17, 1981.
The writ petition filed by the tenant has been dismissed .by the High Court
by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.
D The question which falls for consideration is whether the tenant was
entitled to avail the right conferred under the Act to purchase the land
held by him. It is, therefore, necessary to briefly refer to the relevant
provisions of- the Act. On January 17, 1965 the said provisions read as
follows:
E
"32(1) On the first day of April 1957 (hereinafter referred to as
"the tillers' day") every tenant shall, subject to the other provisions
of the this section and the provisions of the next succeeding
sections, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free of
all encumbrances subsisting there on the said day, the land by him
F as a tenant, if - - ·

(a) such tenant is a permanent tenant thereof and cultivates land
personally.

(b) such tenant is not a permanent tenant but cuitivates the land
G
leased personally: and

(i) the landlord has not given notice of termination of his tenancy
under section 31; or

H (ii) notice has been given under section 31, but the landlord has
- AB. MAGDUM v. B.A DESAI [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.)

not applied to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day of March,
265

A
1957 under section 29 for obtaining possession of the land; or

(iii) the landlord has not terminated this tenancy on any of the
grounds specified in section 14, or has so terminated the tenancy
but has not applied to the Mamlatdar on or before 31st day of
March 1957 under section 29 for obtaining possession of the land: B

Provided that if an application made by the landlord under
section 29 for obtaining possession of the land had been rejected
by the Mamlatdar or by the Collector in appeal or in revision by
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under the provisions of this
Act, the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on the
c
date on which the final order of rejection is passed. The date on
which the final order of rejection is passed is hereinafter referred
to as "the postponed date" :

Provided further that the tenant of a landlord who is entitled D
to the benefit of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 31 shall
be deemed to have purchased the land on the 1st day of April
1958, if no separation of his share has been effected before the
date mentioned in that proviso."

"32-F(1) Notwith~tanding anything contained in the preceding sec-
E
tions (a) where the landlord is a minor, or a a widow, or a person
subject to any mental or physical disability, the tenant shall have
the right to purchases such land under section 32 within one year
from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled
to terminate the tenancy under section 31 : F
Provided that where a person of such category is a member of
"'- a joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if
at least one member of the joint family is outside the categories
mentioned in this sub-section unless before the 31st day of March
1958 the share of such person in the joint family has been separated G
by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on enquiry is satisfied
that the share of such person in the land is separated, having regard
to the area, assessment, classification and value of the land, in the
same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint
family property, and not in a larger proportion. H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A xxxx xxxx xxxx

(IA) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him
under sub-section (1) shall give an intimation in that behalf to the
landlord and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the
period specified in that sub-section.
B
(2) The provisions of sections 32 to 32-E (Both inclusive) and
sections 32-G to 32-R (both inclusive) shall, so far as, may be
applicable, apply to such purchase".

"32P(l) Where the purchase of any land by tenant under section
c 32 becomes ineffective under section 32G or 32M or where a
tenant fails to exercise the right to purchase the land held by him
within the specified period under section 32F, 320, 33C or 43-lD,
the Tribunal may suo motu or on an application made in this
behalf and in cases other than those in which the purchase had
D become ineffective by reason of section 32G or 32M, After holding
a formal inquiry direct that the land shall be disposed of in the
manner provided in sub-section (2).

(2) Such direction shall proved -

E (e) that the former tenant be summarily evicted;

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

In Section 32-G provlSlon is made for issuing of notice by th~
Agricultural Lands Tribunal and determination of price of land to be paid
F by tenants. Sub-section (2) prescribes that· the 'Tribunal sh<~ll record in the
.prescribed manner the statement of the tenant whether he is or is not
willing .to -purchase the land held by him as a tenant and sub-section (3)
lays down that where any tenant fails to appear or makes· a statement that
he is not willing to purchase the land the Tribunal shall by an order in
G wr~ting declare that such tenant is not willing to purchase the land and that
the purchase is ineffective. Under section 25-M the purchase becomes
ineffective in the event of failure of recovery of purchase price under
section 25-K.

In the instant case thl! landlord was minor on April 1, 1957, the tillers'
H day, and the right of the ten~nt to purchase the land is governed by
AB. MAGDUM v. B.A. DESAI [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 267

provisions of section 32-F. A
In clause (a) sub-section (1) of section 32-f it was prescribed that
where the landlord is a minor or a widow or a person subject to any mental
or physical disability the right of the tenant to purchase such land under
section 32 would be available within one year from the expiry of the period
during which the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy under B
section 31. The said period as prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 31
was one year from the date on which the minor attains majority or the
interest of the widow in the land ceases to exist or the mental or physical
disability of the person ceases to exist. Under Clause (lA) the tenant who
was desirous to exercise his right conferred on him under sub-section (1) c
was required to give an intimation in that behalf to the landlord as well as
to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the
period specified in that sub-section, namely within one year after the expiry
of the period during which the landlord was entitled to terminate the
tenancy under section 31. The tenant was, therefore, required to give notice D
before the expiry of the period of two years from the date the minor
landlord attained majority.

By Maharashtra Act 49 of 1969 certain amendments were introduced
in section 32-F. In clause (a) of sub-section (1) section 32-F the following
words were inserted at the end of clause (a) : E
"and for enabling the tenant to exercise the right to purchase, the
landlord shall send an intimation to the tenant of the fact that he
has attained majority, before the expiry of the period during which
such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under section
3~ F
In sub-section (lA) of section 32-F the following proviso was in-
serted:

"Provided that, if a tenant holding land from a landlord (who was G
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 this sub-section but
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 H
....
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R•.

A commencement of that Act."

,These amendments were prospective in operation. As a result of the
amendment introduced in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 32-F, the
la:;,dlord is required to send an intimation to the tenant of the fact that he.
had attained majority and the said intimation had to be sent before the
B: e'xPiry of the period during which the said landlord was entitled to ter-
minate the tenancy under section 3L This provision appears fo have been
inserted· with a view to enable the tenant to known the date on which the
landlord has attained majority so that he ~ exercise the right conferred
on ~·and send the necessary notice as reqwred under sub:section (lA)
C of section 32-F. Since the respondent landlord had attained majority prior
to' the insertion of this provision, it h~ not application in the present case.
· The proviso' that has been inseried in sub-section (1A) of section 32:F
conferred a further benefit ori a tenant who had failed to give intimation
as 'required by sub-section (1A), but w~ in possession of the land on the
D date of the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1969 and who was
desu'ous to exercise the 'right conferred upon him under sub-section l(a)
of section 32-F. Such a tenant was' given fu~ther opportunity to give the
intimation as required under sub-section (lA) within a period of tw~ years'
from the date. of commencement of the Amendment Act 1969, i.e? upto
October 17, 1971.
E
In· the present case it is disputed that the tenant did not send any
intimation as required by sub-section l(a) either upto January 17, 1967 or
even upto October 17, 1971 as provided by the proviso under sub-section ··'
(1A) of section 32-F. Moreover, the tenant in his statement given on
August.25, 1960 before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal stated that he was
F
aware that the respondent-landlord would be attaining majority on January
17, 1965. Thus there was non-compliance on the part of the tenant with the
provisions of sub-section (lA) of section 32-F of the Act' and on that basis
it has been held that the tenant could not avail the right of purchase
conferred under section 32 read with Section 32-F of the Act.
G
. Shri S.B. Wad, lear~ed C:o~el appearing for the appellants, has
urged that in \iew of section :32 read with Section 32-G of the Act there
was automatic purchase by the tenant of the land held by him and 'purchase
caii be treated as ineffective only if the te~ant indicates his intention that
H he is not willing to purchase the land and that mere failure on the part of
- . . . - ' . . -. -- . - - . ~
. AB.MAGDUM v. B.ADESAl[S.C.AGRAWAL,1.) 269

the tenant to send an intimation under sub-section (lA) of section 32-F A
would not result in rendering the purchase by the tenant as ineffective.
Acc0rding to Mr•. Wad the provision requiring sending "an intimation
, .. contained in sub-section (lA) of section J2-F is not mandatory but direc-
.tory in nature. In support of his aforesaid submission Ms. Wad has em-
phasised that the provisions regarding purchase of land by the tenant have B
"been enacted as a measure of_ agrarian reform to make the tiller of the soil
the owner of the land and remove intermediary between ~iller of the. soil
and the State. We are unable to accept this contention. By virtue of section
32(1) every tenant is deemed to have purchased from the landlord free
from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the tiller's day, the land held
by him as tenant. This right is, however, subject to the provisions contained C
in section 32 itself as well as other provisions contained in Part II Chapter
III. of t~e Act. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 32-F imposes a
limitation on this right conferred on the tenant where the landlord is a
minor, or a widow or a person subject to. any mental or physiCal diSabilitY
by prescribing that this right to purchase has to be exercised within one D
year from the expiry of the period during which the la:r;dlord is entitied to
terminate the tenancy under. section 31. Sub-section (lA) of section 32-F
gives effect to this limitation by imposing an obligation on the tenant _who
is desirous of exercising the right conferred on him under sub-section (lA)
to give an intimation in that behalf to the landlord in the prescribed manner
within the period specified in that sub-section. These provisions indicate E
that there is no automatic purchase of the Jand by the tenant in cases where
the landlord happens to be a minor, or a widow or a person subject to any
mental or physical disability and the said right of purchase can be availed
by the tenant if he complies with the requirements of section 32-F. inAmrit
Bhikaji Kale & Ors. v. Kasltinatlt Janardhan Trade & Anr., [1983J 3 SCC p
437, this Court has referred to the distinction that has been made by the
• Act between a case where the landlord is under no disability as envisaged
in section 32-F and a case where the landlord iS of a class or category set.
out u; Section 32-F. It has been observed : · · · . · · · ·

. ' 'Section 3l-F postponed the date of ~~pulsory purchase by the G

.. tenant where the landlord is a minor or a widow or a person subject .
to mental or physiCal disaln1ity on the tillers; day. Section 32-F has
an overriding effect over Section 32 as it opens With a non obstante
clause. The combined effect of sections. 32-f.'. and 32 would show·
that where the landlord is under no disability as envisaged by H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A section 32-F the tenant of such landlord by operation of law would
become the deemed purchase but where the landlord is of a class
or category as set out in section 32-F such as a minor, a widow or
a person subject to any mental or physical disability, the date of
compulsory sale would be postponed as therein provided." (p.444)
B It cannot, therefore, be said that there is an automatic purchase of
the land by the tenant in a case where the landlord happens to be a minor
or a widow or a person subject to any mental or physical disability as
mentioned in section 32-F. In such a case the right of purchase conferred
on the tenant can be effective only if it is exercised in accordance with the
C provisions of section 32-F.

The contention of Shri Wad that the provisions of sub-section (lA)
of section 32-F are not mandatory but only directory in nature and non-
compliance with the said provisions does not render the purchase ineffec-
D tive cannot be accepted for the reason that sub-section (lA) of section 32-F
prescribes the condition for the exercise of the right conferred on the
tenant under sub-section l(a) of section 32-F and the failure on the part
of the tenant to comply with the requirements of sub-section (lA) would
result is non-exercise of the right of purchase by the tenant and as a result
the tenant should be treated as havirig not availed of the right that has been
E conferred on him. Apart from the use of the word "shall" in sub-section
(lA) an indication about the mandatory nature of the said provisions is
also given by the proviso to sub-section (1-A) inserted in 1969 whereby the
tenant who had failed to given an intimation as required by sub-section
(lA), but was in possession of the land on the date of commencement of
the Amendment Act of 1969 and was desirous of exercising the right
F conferred under sub-section l(a), was permitted to give such intimation
within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the
Amendment Act of 1969. Furthermore, we find th!lt the consequences for
non-compliance with the provisions in sub-section (lA) of Section 32-F are
laid down in section 32-P (1) wherein it is provided that where a tenant
G fails to exercise the right to purchase the land held by him within the .
specified period under sections 32-F the Tribunal may suo motu or on an
application made in this behalf after holding a formal mquiry direct that
the land shall be disposed of in the manner provided in sub-section (2).
Such a direction could.provide for summary eviction of the tenant. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that requirement regarding intimation by the
H tenant to the landlord prescribed under sub-section (lA) of section 32-F
AB. MAGDUM v. BA DESAI (S.C. AGRAWAL, J.) 271

is mandatory in nature and the failure on the part of the tenant in the A
present case to give such an intimation to the landlord within the
prescribed period has resulted in the tenant having failed to avail the right
to purchase conferred on him and it has been rightly held that the tenant
having failed to exercise the right to purchase conferred on him by the Act
was liable to summary. eviction under section 32-P(l) of the Act.
B
Shri Wad has urged that inAmrit Bhikaji Kale (supra) the tenant had
made an express statement before the Aval Karkoon in proceedings under
section 14 read with section 29 of the Act that he had become old and was
....
unable to cultivate the land and was willing to hand over possession and
that in spite of the said statement this Court did not attach any importance
to the said statement and the court has observed :
c
''We are not unaware of the landed gentry exercising such influence
over the tenants that in the absence of legal literacy they may make
any statement contrary to their legally protected interest. A
measure of agrarian reform cannot be permitted to be defeated by D
such devious means adopted by the landlords."

The submission of Shri Wad is that if express statement made by the
tenant could not stand in the way of his availing the right conferred by the
Act, there is no reason why merely because of inaction on his part a tenant
should be deprived of the right. The observations aforementioned made in E
Amrit Bhikaji Kale (supra) have to be read in the context of the facts of
that case where it was found that the landlord who was major and was
under no disability, was alive on April 1, 1957 and the provisions of section
32-F were not attracted and there was deemed purchase of the land by the
tenant by virtue of section 32. The subsequent statement made by the
tenant in proceedings before the Aval Karkoon were, therefore, held to be F
of no avail. The position in the instant case is, however, different. The
respondent-landlord was a minor on April, 1, 1957 and the case was
governed by section 32-F and there has been non-compliance of sub-sec-
tion (lA) of section 32-F.
G
For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any legal infirmity in the
judgment of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is accord-
ingly dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case without any
orders as to costs.

G.N. Appeal dismissed.

•