Holding

The second proviso to Section 88(1)(b) does not divest a tenant’s vested right as deemed purchaser; it applies only to bona‑fide, valid transfers, and an illegal sale by a son lacking authority cannot defeat that statutory right.

Summary

The appellant, Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli, leased agricultural land and, under Section 32(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, became a deemed purchaser from tillers' day (1 April 1957). Because the landlord was a lunatic, his purchase right was deferred under Section 32‑F until the landlord’s disability ceased or one year after his death, which occurred in September 1965, making the appellant’s right effective from 19 August 1966. While the landlord was still alive, his son Vasant Rao sold the land to the respondent on 19 August 1964, claiming that a notification under Section 88(1)(b) (and its second proviso) exempted the land from the Act, thereby removing the Mamlatdar’s jurisdiction to fix price. The Supreme Court held that the second proviso applies only to valid, bona‑fide transfers and cannot divest a tenant’s vested right as deemed purchaser; the son had no authority to sell the land of a lunatic Karta without a court order, rendering the sale illegal. Consequently, the appellant’s statutory right remained intact and the Mamlatdar’s price‑fixation order was upheld. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders of the High Court, Tribunal and Collector.

Issues considered

Whether the second proviso to Section 88(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 has retrospective effect that deprives a tenant of his statutory right as deemed purchaser.
Whether a sale by the son of a lunatic Karta, without a court appointment under the Indian Lunacy Act, is valid and can defeat the tenant’s deemed‑purchaser right.
Whether the notification under Section 88(1)(b) exempts the land from the Act, thereby removing the Mamlatdar’s jurisdiction to determine the purchase price.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 32(1), s. 32-F, s. 32-G, s. 88(1)(b), s. 89(2)(b)
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1965s. 18(1), s. 18(2)
Indian Lunacy Act, 1912s. 39, s. 43, s. 45

Subjects

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Actdeemed purchaserSection 88 provisoretrospective effectland salelunacyHindu joint familylandlord disabilitystatutory rightnotificationindustrial reservationMamlatdar jurisdiction

Judgment

:A TRIBHOVANDAS HARIBHAI TAMBOLI
v.
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
I
MAY 10, 1991

B [KULDil> SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948--Section
32( I), 8/J( 1) (b)-Statutory rii:ht of 'deemed purchaser'-Whether
arises.
The appellant took on lease some agricultural lands from one >- "°"
C Viswas Rao and by operation of Section 32( 1) of the Bombay Tenancy
and .°Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948, which was applicable to the
lease, be became a deemed purchaser from tillers' day i.e. 1.4.1957.
Sini:e the landlord was insane, the right to purchase was statµtorily
deferred under section 32-F till date of its cessation or one year after
D death. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 88(l)(b) of the
Act, certaln lands including those of the appellant's lease-bold lands
were reserved for industrial purpose; thereby making sectioos 1 to 87 of
the Act inapplicable to the exempted area. During the subsistence of ·:r ~
disability of the landlord, his son Vasant Rao sold the land to the
respondent under registered sale deed. Visbwas Rao died in September
1965. The appellant became entitled to purchase the land on and from
E August 19, 1966. He therefore flied an application before Mamlatdar to
'1x the price. He fixed on enquiry at Rs.4,925/65 P. which was paid by
the appellant. In the enquiry, the respondent contended that he
purchased the property from Vasantrao, son of the landlord and by
nperation of the second proviso to Section 88( l)(b), the lands stood
~xempted from the operation of Sections 1 to 87 of the Act. So the
F Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to decide the price of the land. The
appellant's contention was that Vasantrao had no right to sell the lands
during the life time of his father, the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family.
The sale was invalid and did not bind him. He had acquired statutory
right of 'deemed purchaser' and its exemption under section 88( l)(h)
did not divest his statutory right. The Mamlatdar accepted the appel-
G !ant's _c.!lnte11tron and allowe_d the _pet_itlon. On~appeal to the Collector
and revision to the Revenue Tribunal, the decision of Mamlatdar was
reversed. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ
petition. Hence this appeal by the appellant, after obtaining special
leave. On the question:...:..whether the operation of the ~nd l'roviso to
H Section 88(1)(b) of the tenancy Act, 1948 has retrospe.ctive effect depriv-
ing the appellant of the statutory right?
802
T.H. TAMBOLI v. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL 803

Allowing the appeal, this Court A

• HELD: Section 88 of the Act empowers the government to exempt
certain other lands from the purview of Sections 1 to 87 of the Act. The
State Governments exercised their power from time to time under
Section 88( l)(b) and issued notification and published in the official B
Gazette specifying certain areas as being reserved for non-agricultural
or indnstrial development i.e., urban development. [806C-D I

If any land in the newly added area has been transferred or
acquired between the date of the notification issued under f"irst proviso
and October 29, 1964, such transfer or acquisition ofland shall have the
effect as if it was made in an area to which the main part of the proviso c
and Section 88( l)(b) would apply. The necessary consequence would be
that the provisions of Sections 1 to 87 shall not apply and shall be
deemed never to have applied to such added area. It is Implicit that such
transfer or acquisition made, to bring within the net of second proviso,
must be valid and bona fide one and not colourable, fraudulent, ficti-
D
tiou> or nominal. [809G-8JOB]

In the instant case. since Vasantrao did not obtain any order frorn
the competent court nnder the Lunacy Act to have him appointed as
Manager of the joint family to alienate the property, the sale .is per se
illegal, The sale, therefore, appears to be to defeat the statutory right of
E
the appellant. The rig1>ur of the second proviso to Section 88(l)(b) is thus
inapplicable. Thereby the right and interest as deemed purchaser
acquired by the appellant has not been affected by subsequent notifica-
tion issued under section 88(1)(b). [811F-G]

Sukharam@ Bapusaheb Narayan Sanos & Anr. v. Manikchand
F
Motichand Shah & Anr., [1962] 2 S.C.R. 59; Mohan/al Chunila/
Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli, [ 1963] 2 S.C.R. 707; Sidram
Narsappa Kamble v. Sholapur Borough Muncipality & Anr., [1966] I
S.C.R. 618; Parvati & Ors. v. Fatehsinhrao Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad,
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 793; Navinchandra Raman/al v. Kalidas Bhudarbai &
Anr., [1979] 4 S.C.C. 75; P.K. Gobindan Nafr & Ors. v. P. Narayanan
G
Nair & Ors., [1912] 23 M.L.J. 706= 17 Indian Cases 473; and A.
Ramacharlu v. Archakan Ananthacharlu & Anr., A.I.R. 1955 A.P.
261, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No, 2378
of 1977.
H
804 SCPREME COURT REPORTS I 1991] 2 S.C.R.
From the Judgment dated 3.2.1977 of the Gujarat High Court in
Special Civil Application No. 551of1972.
1
B. Datta, L.B. Kolekar, Ms. Chetna Anand and P.H. Parekh
(NP) for the Appellant.

B S.K. Kholakia, R.B. Haribhakti and P.C. Kapoor (NP) for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. The facts relevant to the controversy are
as under:
c
The appellant had taken on lease, about 55 years ago, an extent
of 2 acres, 6 gunthas of agricultural lands situated in Akote village
from Vishwas Rao. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
67 of 1948 for short 'the Act' applies to the lease. By operation of
D s. 32(1) the appellant became a deemed purchaser from tillers' day
i.e., April 1, 1957. Section 32-G provides the procedure to determine >' •
purchase price. Since the landlord was insane, the right to purchase
was statutorily deferred under section 32-F till date of its cessation or
one year after death. Under section 88(1)(b) of the Act certain areas
abutting Baroda Municipality were notified as being reserved for non-
E agricultural or industrial purpose with effect from May 2, 1958. By
another notification published in the Gujarat State Gazette dated July
2, 1964, certain lands including those situated in Akote and of the
appellant's lease hold lands were reserved for industrial purpose. Con- y
sequently Ss. 1 to 87 of the Act do not apply to the exempted area.
While the landlord was continuing under disability, his son Vasant
F Rao sold the land to the respondent under registered sale deed dated
August 19, 1964. By another notification under Section 88(1)(b)
published in the Gazette dated October 29, 1964, the Government
restricted the operation of the exemption to the area originally notified
on May 2, 1958 i.e., Ss. 1 to 87 do not apply to the lands in question.
This notification was rescinded by further notification published in the ~
G Gazette dated August 23, 1976. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricul-
tural Lands (Gujarat) Amendment Act 36 of 1965, s. 18(1) and 18(2)
thereof introduced two provisos to s. 88( l)(b) of the Act which was
published in the Gazette on December 29, 1965 which are relevant for
purpose of the case. Section 88(J)(b) with amendments reads thus:

H "(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2),

I
T.H. TAMIJOLI v. (;UJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL [RAMASWAMY,!.] 805

nothing in the following provisions of this Act shall apply-
A
(a) to lands belonging to, or held on lease from the
Government;

(aa) to lands held or leased by a local authority;
B
(b) to any area which the State Government may, from
time to time, by notification in the official Gazette, specify
as being reserved for non-agricultural or industrial
development;

Provided that if after a notification in respect of any area
spe~ified in the notification is issued under this clause,
c
whether before or after the commencement of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment)
Act, 1965, the limits of the area so specified _are enlarged
on account of the addition of any other area thereto, then
merely by reason of such addition, the reservation as made D
by the notification so issued shall not apply and shall be
deemed never to have applied to the area so added,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any
judgment, or order of any court, Trib.unal or any other
authority.
E
Provided further that if any land in the area so added has
been transferred or acquired· after the issue of notification
referred to in the first proviso but before the 29th day of
October, 1964, such transfer or acquisition of land shall
have effect as if it were made in an area to which this clause
applies", F

Sub-section (2) is not relevant. Hence it is omitted.

Vishwash Rao died i.n September 1965. The appellant became
entitled to purchase the land on and from August 19, 1966. He filed an
application before Mamlatdar to fix the price. He fixed on enquiry at G
Rs.4,925.65 paise which was paid by the appellant.

In the enquiry, the respondent contended that he purchased the
property from Vasantrao, son of the landlord. By operation of second
proviso to s. 88( l)(b) the lands stood exempted from operation of Ss. I
to 87 of the Act. So the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to decide the H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19911 2 S.C.R.

price of the land. The appellant raised the contention that Vasantrao
A
has no right to sell during the life time of the father, the Karla of the
Hindu Joint Family. The sale is invalid and does not bind him. He
acquired statutory right of deemed purchaser and its exemption under
section 88(1)(b) does not divest his statutory right. The Mamlatdar
accepted the appellant's contention and allowed the petition. On
B appeal to the Collector and revision to the Revenue Tribunal the
decision was reversed. The Division Bench of the High Court by order
dated February 3, 1977 dismissed the writ petition. The appellant had
leave of this Court by Art. 136. Thus this appeal.

From these admitted facts the question emerges whether the
operation of the second proviso to s. 88( l)(b) has retrospective effect
c depriving the appellant of the statutory right of 'deemed purchaser'.
S. 88 of the Act empowers the government to exempt certain other
lands from the purview of Ss. 1 to 87 of the Act. The State Govern-
ment exercised their power from time to time under section 88(1)(b)
and issued notification and published in the official Gazette specifying
D certain areas as being reserved for non-agricultural or industrial
development i.e., urban development. Consequently the first proviso ), .
gets attracted which say that notwithstanding any judgment or order of
any court, tribunal or any other authority under the Act to the con-
trary, once the notification was issued either before or after com-
mencement of the Amendment Act reserving the area so added for
E non-agricultural or industrial development i.e. expansion for urbanisa-
tion, to the extent of the area covered under the first proviso, the
provsions of Ss. 1 to 87 were not applied and shall be deemed never to
have been applied. The second proviso which is material for the
purpose of the case further postulates that:

F "Provided further that if any land in the area so added has
been transferred or acquired after the issue of the notifica-
tion referred to in the first proviso but before the 29th day of
October, 1964, such transfer or acquisition of the land shall
have effect as if it was made to an area to which this clause ·
applies".
G (emphasis supplied)

What is the effect of the second proviso to the facts is the ques-
tion? Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the first proviso has the effect of excluding Ss. 1 to 87 of the Act only to
those areas which were initially reserved for non-agricultural or indust-
H rial development and has no application to the land added to it by a
T.H. TAMBOLI v. GUJARATREVENUETRIBUNAL(RAMASWAMY,J.) 807

subsequent notification though it would become part thereof. Any
A
alienation in violation of the Act would not attract the operation of the
second proviso. The Act is an agrarian reform which created a vested
right in the tenant as a deemed purchaser with effect from Tillers' day
which cannot be divested retrospectively. The proviso should be con-
strued to inhere in the tenant the vested rights created under the Act.
The Withdrawal of the notification dated Oct. 29, 1964 renders the B
right of the appellant uneffected.

It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular
provision of a statute only embraces the field, which is covered by the
main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to
which it has been enacted by the proviso and to no other. The proper
function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would c
otherwise fall within the general language of the ll)!iin enactment, and
its effect is to confine to that case. Where the language of the main
enactment is explicit and unambiguous, the proviso can have no
repercussion on the interpretation of the main enactment, so as to
exclude from it, by implication what clearly falls within its express D
terms. The scope of the proviso, therefore, is to carve out an exception
to the main enactment and it excludes something which otherwise
would have been within the rule. It has to operate in the same field and
if the language of the main enactment is clear, the proviso cannot be
torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify by
implication what the enactment clearly says nor set at naught the real E
object of the main enactment, unless the words of the.proviso are such
that it is its necessary effect.

The effect of the notification issued under section 88( I)(b) was
the subject of consideration in several decisions of this Court. In
Sukharam @ Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas &. Anr. v. Manikchand F
Motichand Shah and Anr., [1962] 2 SCR 59 Sinha, CJ., held that the
provisions of s. 88 are entirely prospective and apply to such lands as
are dessribed in clauses (a) to (d) of s. 88(1) from which the Act came
into operation, namely, December 28, 1948 and are not of a confis-
catory in nature so as to take away from the tenant the status of a
protected tenant already accrued to him. In Mohan/al Chunila/ G
Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tambo/i, [1963] 2 SCR 707 a Constitu-
tion Bench speaking through Sinha, CJ. held that Clauses .(a) to (c) of
s. 88(1) applies to things as they were on the date of the commencement of
the Act of 1948 whereas clause (d) authorised the State Govt. to
specify certain areas as being reserved for urban non-agricultural or
industrial development, by notification in the official Gazette, from H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991) 2 S.C.R.

time to time. It was specifically prnvided in clauses (a) to (c) that the
A
Act, from its inception, did not apply to certain areas then identified,
whereas clause (d) has reference to the future. The State Govt, could
take out of the operation of the Act such areas as in its opinion should
be reserved for urban non-agricultural or industrial development.
Clause (d) would come into operation only upon such a notification
B being issued by the State Govt. In Sukhram's case, this Court never
intended to lay down that the provisions of clause (d) are only prospec-
tive and have no retrospective operation. Unlike clauses (a) to (c) which
are clearly prospective, clause (d) has retrospective operation in the
sense that it would apply to land which would be covered by the notifica-
tion to be issued by the government from time to time so as to take that
land out of the operation of the Act of 1948, granting the protection.
c · (emphasis supplied)

So far as clauses (a) to (c) are concerned, the Act of 1948 would not
apply at all to lands covered by them, but that would not take away the
rights covered by the Act of 1939 which was repealed by the Act of
D 1948. Therefore, it was held that by operation of s. 89(2) the rights
acquired under the Act of 1939 would be available to the tenant.

When a doubt was expressed of the correctness of the above
views on reference, another Constitution Bench in Sidram Narsappa
Kamble v. Sholapur Borough Municipality & Anr., [1966] 1 SCR. 618,
E held at p. 625 thus:

"New there is no doubt that s. 88 when it lays down inter
alia that nothing in the foregoing provisions of the 1948-
Act shall apply to lands held on lease from a local autho-
rity, it is an express provision which takes out such leases
F from the purview of sections 1 to 87 of the 1948-Act. One
·of the provisions therefore which ,must be treated as non-
existent where lands given on lease by a local authority is in
s. 31 ..... but the effect of the express provision contained
ins. 88(1)(a) clearly is thats. 31 must be treated as non-
existent so far as lands held on lease from a local authority
G are concerned and in effect therefore s. 88(1)(a) must be
held to say that there will be no protection under the 1948-
Act for protected tenants under the 1939-Act so far as
lands held on lease from a local authority are concerned

H In view of this express provision contained in s. 88( l)(a),
T.H. TAMBOLI v. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL [RAMASWAMY,J.] 809

the appellant cannot claim the benefit of s. 31; nor can it be A
said that his interest as protected tenant is saved by
s. 89(2)(b ). This in our opinion is a plain effect of the
provisions contained in s. 31, s. 88 and s. 89(2)(b) of the
1948-Act".
In Parvati & Ors. v. Fatehsinhrao Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad,
B
[ 1986] 3 SCR 793. the facts were that the Government issued a notifi-
cation on May 21, 1958 under section 88(l)(b) of the 1948 Act reserv-
ing the land within the municipal limits of the city of Baroda for
non-agricultural and industrial development. The appellant's husband
had taken possession of certain lands situated in the city of Baroda on
lease from the respondent-trustee. The respondent laid the suit
against the appellant for recovery of arreats of rent. The defence was c
that the suit was not maintainable. Dealing with the effect of the
notification issued under section 88(1)(b), this Court held that the
notification had retrospective operation and subject to certain excep-
tions provided in sub-section (2) of s. 88 all rights, title, obligations
etc. accrued or acquired under the said Act ceased to exist. Therefore,
D
s. 89(2){b) was inapplicable to protect such right, title or interes\,
acquired under the Act except as provided in s. 89A owing to express
provision made in s. 88 of the Act. Accordingly it was held that the
Civil Court was legally competent to determine the reasonable rent
payable by the tenant. In Navinchandra Raman/al v. Kalidas Bhudar-
bai & Anr., [1979] 4 SCC 75 this Court was to consider a case that the
E
notification under section 88{l)(b) was issued on May 30, 1959 by
which date the tenant acquired the statutory right of a deemed pur-
chaser with effect from April 1, 1957. This Court held that the tenant
cannot be divested of his deemed purchase by a subsequent notifi-
cation issued thereunder. It would be seen that the effect of the second
proviso was not considered therein.
F
The above interpretation would equally" apply to the interpreta-
tion of the notification issued under the proviso to s. 88( l)(b) adding
to the area reserved for non-agricultural or industrial development. Its
effect is that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any court or
Tribunal or any other authority, the provisions of Ss. 1 to 87 shall not
apply and shall be deemed never to have applied to such added area as G
well' If any land in the newly added area has been transferred or
acquired between the date of the notification issued under first proviso
and October 29, 1964, such transfer or.acquisition of land shall have
the effect as if it was made in an area to which the main part of the
proviso and s. 88( l)(b) would apply, The necessary consequence
would be that the provisions of ss. 1 to 87 shall not apply and shall ~e
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1991] 2 S.C.R.

deemed never to have applied to such added area. It is implicit that
A
such transfer or acquisition made, to bring within the net of second
proviso, must be valid and bona fide one and not colourable, fraudu-
lent, fictiti<ms or nominal. The Legislature appears· to relieve hardship
to the b1,ma fide purchasers. The title acquired by such transfer is not
effected _by_ the provisions of the Act. The Legislature advisedly used
B the words 'acquired or transferred'.
The respondent's own case is that Vishwesh Rao, Karta of the
Hindu Joint Family was under disability due to lunacy. The tenant
acquired statutory right as deemed purchaser under s. 32. The Act, by
necessary implication, divests the landlord of his right to alienate the
land held by the tenant. The statutory right to purchase the land under
c s. 32 as deemed purchaser was postponed by operation of s. 32-F of the
Act till the cessation of the disability or one year after the death of the
landlord. In such situation can the son during the life time of the
father, has right to sell the same property to the respondents, and
whether such a sale made on August 19, 1964 to the respondents was
valid and binds the appellant.
D
In Raghavachariar's Hindu Law Principles and Precedents, > ~
Eighth Ed., 1987 ins. 275 at p. 239 stated thus: ·
"So long as the joint family remains undivided, the senior
member of the family is entitled to manage the family pro-
perties, and the father, and in his absence, the aext senior-
E most male member of the family, as its manager provided
he is not incapacitated from acting as such by illness or
other sufficient cause. The father's right to be the manager
of the family is a survival of the patria potastas and he is in
all cases, naturally, and in the case of minor sons necessa-
rily the manager of the joint family property. In the absence
F of the father, or if he resigns, the management of the family
property devolves upon the eldest male member of the
family provided he is not wanting in the necessary capacity
to manage it".

Regarding the management of the Joint Family Property or busi-
G ness or other interests in a Hindu Joint Family, the Karta of the Hindu
Joint Family is a prima inter pares. The managership of the Joint Family
Property goes to a person by birth and is regulated by seniority and the
Karla or the Manager occupies a position superior to that of the other
members. A junior member cannot, therefore, deal with the joint
family property as Manager so long as the Karta is available except
H where the Karta relinquishes his right expressly or by necessary impli-
l.

T.H. TAMBOLI v. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL [RAMASWAMY,J.J 811

cation or in the absence of the Manager in exceptional and extra-
A
ordinary circumstances such as distress or calamity effecting the whole
family and for supporting the family or in the absence of the father

r
y whose whereabouts were not known or who was away in remote place
due to compelling circumstances and that his return within the reason-
• able time was unlikely or not anticipated. No such circumstances are
available here to attract the facts of the case. B
Vasantrao, the vendor, son of the Karta of the Hindu Joint
Family per se has no right to sell the property in question as Manager
so long as the father was alive. When f~ther was under disability due to
r> -\_ lunacy, an order from the Court under Indian Lunacy Act IV of 1912
t was to be obtained to manage the joint family property. No proceed-
ings were taken under ss. 39, 43 and 45 of the Indian Lunacy Act to c
have the inquisition made by a competent District Court to declare
i,' hiin as insane and to have him appointed as Manager of the Joint
Family. In P.K. Gobindan Nair & Ors. v. P. Narayanan Nair & Ors.,
[1912] 23 M.L.J. 706=17 Indian Cases 473 a division Bench of the
Madras High Court held that a guardian cannot be appointed as
Manager under the Guardian and Wards Act on an adjudication of D
;,
-{ Karnavan of an undivided Malabar Tarwad as a lunatic removing the
Karnavan as a member due to lunacy. In A. Ramachar/u v. Archakan
Ananthachar/u & Anr., A.LR. 1955 A.P. 261 a division Bench consist-
ing of Subba Rao, C.J. and Satyanarayana Raju, J. (as they were)
considered the question of appointment of a son as the Manager of the
Mitakshara family whose father was alleged to be a lunatic. Subba E
Rao, C.J. speaking for the Bench, held that in view of the finding that
.I the Karta, though was mentally not sound, but was capable to manage

~
y the property, the application for appointment of a son as Manager of
the joint family property was not be ordered. Since Vasantrao did not
·S obtain any order from the competent court under the Lunacy Act to
have him appointed as Manager of the joint family to alienate the F
property, the sale is per se illegal. The sale, therefore, appears to be to
defeat. the statutory right of the appellant. The rigour of the second
. proviso to s. 88(1)(b) is thus inapplicable. Thereby the right and

..
~ .:.

interest as a deemed purchaser acquired by the appellant has not been
'"
effected by a subsequent notification issued under s. 88(1)(b). The
High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in holding that the G
appellant is not entitled to the relief. The appeal is accordingly allowed
and the orders of the High Court, the Tribunal and District Collector
are set aside and that of the Mamlatdar is confirmed, but in the
~ circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Y.Lal. Appeal allowed.
·':::;f