Holding

The sale of the land to Mugaji on 3 June 1960 is illegal and inoperative as it violated the ceiling provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Summary

Mugaji Laxman Padule, a long‑time tenant, held agricultural land that exceeded the ceiling area prescribed under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In 1960 he purchased an additional parcel from the landlords for Rs 3,000, claiming that a prior partition had brought his holdings within the ceiling limit. The respondents contested the sale, and after a series of inquiries the Revenue Tribunal held that Mugaji’s other lands still exceeded the ceiling, making the purchase void under Section 63 of the Act. The Bombay High Court rejected the appellants’ petition under Article 227, and the matter reached the Supreme Court on special leave. The Court affirmed that a sale is invalid if, after the transfer, the buyer would hold land exceeding two‑thirds of the ceiling area, regardless of later inheritance, and therefore declared the 1960 sale illegal and inoperative.

Issues considered

The sale of land to a tenant who already held land beyond the ceiling area is valid under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Whether Section 63 of the Act renders a transfer void when the buyer’s holdings exceed the ceiling limit after the transfer.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 32A, s. 32G, s. 32P, s. 63, s. 84C
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961s. 10

Subjects

land ceilingtenant purchaseinvalid saleBombay Tenancy Actagricultural landpartitionSection 63Section 32ASection 84CSupreme Court

Judgment

MUGAJI LAXMAN PADULE THROUGH HIS HEIRS
A
v.
TRIMBAK WASUDEO KULKARNI & ORS.

JANUARY 18, 1989

B ILALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] ,>--
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Sections
32A, 32G, 32P, 63 and 84C-Purchase of land by person who holds /ii

c
land in excess of ceiling area-Validity of such purchase.

The appellants are the heirs of one A who was the tenant of the
)?
land in question for abont three decades before the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 was enacted. Though be was entitled 'I
to purchase the land on satisfaction of certain conditions, it was admit-
led before the authorities that he did not satisfy the conditions. The
landlords claimecl possession of the land. A was already possessed of
D land beyond the ceiling area prescribed by Sec. 32A of the Act and he,
therefore, did not claim to have purchased the land in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. Since in such cases. Sec. 32P provides that the
'
former tenant would be summarily evicted and the land would be sur-
rendered to the landlord, the land in question went to the landlords. _ )·
The appellants claimed that on a partition in the family of the landlords
E the land in question was allotted to some of the respondents and A
purchased the same for Rs. 3000 on 3.6.1960. It was contended that the
land-holding of A was within the ceiling area following the partition in
1959 between him and his sons. -
,,,__

F
Suppressing the sale of the land and without impleading the
appellants, the respondents moved the authorities in 1963 for recognis-
l
ing their claim. The Agricultural Land Tribunal and the Additional
Mamlatdar npheld the claim of the respondents, relying on an enquiry
under Section 32G, wherein the right of A as a tenant was negatived.
The appellants filed an appeal before the collector, who remanded the
matter to the Mamlatdar. The Additional Mamlatdar observed that
G since the tenant had purchased the land from the landlords, the pro-
ceeding was fit to be dropped and it would be appropriate to deal with ;i.
the case under Section 84C which provided holding of an enquiry to
decide the validity of the transfer. After such enquiry the Agricultural
Lands Tribunal held that the purchase made on 3.6.1960 .by A was.
lawful and upheld the claim of the appellants. This was confirmed on
H appeal and one of the respondents filed a revision application before the
238
M.L. PADULE v. T.W. KULKARNI [SHARMA, J.] 239

Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the land owned by A did not
A
belong to the joint family and his sons had no share therein and so the
alleged partition could not be accepted or recognised. And in 1960, A
was possessed of land beyond the ceiling area and was not entitled to
purchase further land from respondents. The appellant moved the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected
the petition. This appeal, by Special Leave, is against the High Court's B
Judgment.

Dismissing the appeal,

HELD: The ban on transfers which may affect the ceiling law is
more severe under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948. Sec. 63 directs that no sale of land shall be valid in favour of a c
person who will, after such sale, hold land exceeding two-thirds of the
ceiling area determined under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The fact that on the death of A in 1962
his earlier holdings were inherited by his heirs and the respective hold-
ings, therefore, came below the ceiling area, is immaterial because the D
disputed land was purchased by A himself in 1960. It has to be
remembered that, as has been held by the Revenue Tribunal, the
other lands' exclusively belonged to A and exceeded the ceiling area.
The sale on 3.6.1960 must, therefore, be held to be illegal and
inoperative. [241G-H; 242A]
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 950
(N) of 1973.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.1972 of the Bombay
High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2826 of 1969.
F
Pinaki Misra, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the
Appellants.

V .N. Gan pule and V .D. Khanna for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G

SHARMA, J. The subject matter of this appeal is 13.30 acres of
land in Sholapur District, within the State of Maharashtra. The appel-
lants are the heirs of one Mugaji Laxman Padule, who was the tenant
of the land for about 3 decades before the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Land Act, 1948 {hereinafter referred to as the Act) was H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1989 I 1 S.C.R.

enacted. Under the provisions of the Act, Mugaji was entitled to
A
purchase the land on satisfaction of certain conditions. Admittedly he
did not satisfy these conditions and said so before the authorities con-
cerned. The landlords who are now represented by the respondents,
were claiming possession of the area under the Act. Mugaji, subse-
quently, made a claim to the Land on another basis. On his death in
B 1962, his heirs the appellants were substituted. The matter was con-
sidered by several authorities under the Act, who ultimately rejected
the appellants' case. The appellants, thereafter moved the Bombay
High Court by an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, which was rejected by the impugned judgment.

2. The procedure for the tenant to purchase the land is laid down
c in Sec. 32G of the Act. It en joins the Agricultural Land Tribunal
constituted under Sec. 67 to publish a public notice calling upon the
tenants, the landlords and any other interested person to appear
before it on a specified date. The Tribunal is also requird to issue
individual notices to the landlords and the tenants, and thereafter to
D decide the competing cases. Sec. 32A limits the right of a tenant hold-
ing other Lands ·to such area only which will raise his holding to the
extent of the ceiling area. Admittedly Mugaji was already possessed of
lands beyond the ceiling area and he, therefore, did not claim to have
purchased the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In a
situation where a tenant is not able to successfully claim the land, it
E has to be disposed of in the manner provided in Sec. 32P, which states
that the former tenant would be summarily evicted and the land would
be surrendered to the landlord. In the present case the land in ques-
tion, thus, went to the landlords. According to the case of the appel-
lants, on a partition in the family of the landlords the disputed land
was allotted to the share of the respondents 2 to 4 and Mugaji
F purchased the same for a sum of Rs. 3,000 from them on 3.6.1960. The
appellants alleged that by this date, i.e., 3.6.1960 the land held by
Mugaji was within the ceiling area following a partition between him
and his sons on 13.10.1959.

3. The respondents moved the authorities under the Act in 1963
G for recognising their claim. They did not implead the appellants and
suppressed the fact of the sale on 3.6.1960 in favour of Mugaji. The
Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Additional Mamlatdar relying on the j.
enquiry under Sec. 32G, wherein the right of Mugaji as a tenant was 1
negatived, upheld the claim of the present respondents by his order
dated 28.4.1963. When the appellants learnt about it, they filed an
H appeal before the Collector. They also challenged the earlier order
M.L. PADULE v. T.W. KULKARNI [SHARMA, J.] 241
'

4 passed against Mugaji under Sec. 32G. The Collector remanded the A
matter on 25.9.1963. The Additional Mamlatdar by his order dated
8.2.1964 observed that since the tenant had purchased the suit land
from the landlords, the proceeding was fit to be dropped and it was
apppropriate to deal with the case under Sec. 84C of the Act. Sec. 84C
states that in respect of a transfer of any land made after 1955 if the
Mamlatdar has reason to believe that the transfer was invalid on B
---\' account of any of the provisions of the Act, he would issue notice and
hold an enquiry and decide whether the transfer is invalid or not. In
I 1965 a further order was passed in the case wherein the Agricultural
~~ Lands Tribunal held the purchase by Mugaji on 3.6.1960 as lawful and
upheld the claim of the appellants. The order was upheld in appeal,
and the respondent No. 3 filed a revision application before the c
Revenue Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the present appel-
y !ants that after the partition between Mugaji and his sons in 1959 the
area held by him came below the ceiling level and he was, thus,
entitled to purchase the land on 3.6.1960. The Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal held that the land owned by Mugaji did not belong to the
joint family and his sons had no share therein, and the alleged parti- D
lion, therefore, could not be accepted or recognised. The result is that
even. in 1960, Mugaji was possessed of land beyond the ceiling area and
he was not entitled to purchase further land from the respondents 2 to
>< 4. thus, having lost the case, the appellants moved the Bombay High
Court, and their application was rejected by a short judgment passed
on 2.8. 1972 which is under challenge in this appeal by Special Leave. E

4. The learned counsel for appellants contended that the High
Court was in error in assuming that the claim of the appellants was

'
based on the right of Mugaji under Sec. 32G of the Act in the capacity
of a tenant; and also in relying on Sec. 10 of the Maharashtra F
) Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The learned
counsel appears to be right but for this reason the appellants can not
succeed. The ban on transfers which may affect the ceiling law is more
severe under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Sec. 63 directs that no sale of land shall be valid in favour of a person
who will after such sale hold land exceeding two-thirds of the ceiling G
area determined under the Maharashtra Agricultural lands (Ceiling on
..'.><. Holdings) Act, 1961. The fact that on the death of Mugaji in 1962 his
earlier holdings were inherited by his heirs and the respective hold-
ings, therefore, came below the ceiling area is immaterial, because the
disputed land was purchased by Mugaji himself in 1960. It has to be
remembered that, as has been held by the Revenue Tribunal, the other H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 1 S.C.R.

A lands exclusively belonged to Mugaji and exceeded the ceiling area.
The sale on 3.6.1960 must, therefore, be held to be illegal and inopera-
tive. Consequently, the appellants must lose although for slightly diffe-
rent reasons than those given by the High Court. The appeal is accord-
ingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
B Appeal dismissed.
G.N.