Tenants Holding Watan Property On 'Tiller's Day' Would Be Entitle To Purchase Watan Property Under Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 14) held that the tenant holding possession of the Watan property under the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, on the 'Tiller's Day', which is not subjected to payment of land revenue to the State Government, would be entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase for purchasing the tenanted Watan property under the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 (“Abolition Act”).

Affirming the decision of the High Court, the Bench Comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar while denying ownership right to the legal heirs of the Watan Property Owner observed that with the promulgation of the Abolition Act whereby all incidents appertaining to the said Watans, including the right to hold office and Watan property, stood extinguished, the Legal Heirs of the Watan Property Owners cannot claim ownership right over the Watan Property once the Watan property is leased to the tenants by the 'Watandar' (Predecessors of Legal Heirs).

“On the above analysis, we hold that it was not open to the appellants to proceed against the tenants under the provisions of Sections 5, 11 and 11A of the 1874 Act after the death of Balaji Chimnaji More, the original Watandar, in February/March, 1958. This is because the provisions of the Tenancy Act were very much applicable to the subject lands by then and more so, Sections 29 and 31 thereof. Therefore, the legal heirs of the original Watandar could not have taken lawful possession of these lands from the tenants pursuant to the order dated 18.04.1961 passed under Sections 5, 11 and 11A of the 1874 Act. The same was rightly held to be invalid in the revisionary order dated 03.05.1982 and that finding was correctly held to be justified by the Bombay High Court.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar observed.

Background

The present case entails the correlation and harmonious construction of three vintage legislations operationalized in Maharashtra. The oldest of the three statutes is the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (for brevity, 'the 1874 Act'). The next is the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for brevity, 'the Tenancy Act'), and the third is the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 (for brevity, 'the Abolition Act').

The gist of the dispute was that the predecessors of the Appellants i.e., Watandar had leased certain properties to the predecessors of respondents i.e., tenants, and they were cultivating on this Watan property as tenants since 1955-56 or thereabouts. However, after the death of the Watandar, in 1958 the legal heirs filed an application under 1874 Act claiming back the leased property on the ground that the lease on the property couldn't be extended beyond the life of the Watandar.

Allowing the appellants application, the Assistant Collector held that the tenancy created by the father of the applicants could not extend beyond his lifetime and the applicants would, therefore, have the right to recover possession of the said lands after the death of the Watandar.

However, after the rejection of their claim by the Additional Commissioner also, the possession of the lands in question was handed over on 22.04.1962 to the Appellants, in terms of the order passed by the Assistant Collector.

In the meanwhile, the Abolition Act was promulgated and it came into effect from 01.01.1963. As per Section 3 thereof, all Patel Watans stood abolished from the appointed date, i.e., 01.01.1963. In consequence, all incidents appertaining to the said Watans, including the right to hold office and Watan property, stood extinguished.

Against the refusal to grant ownership rights over the tenanted property, the respondents/tenants approached the State Government, who had directed the delivery of possession of the Watan lands to the tenants.

Against the state government decision, the Appellant preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the appeal on the note that although the Appellants were handed over with the possession of the land but the claim regarding their ownership was still pending, which would be subjected to the final disposal of the case, therefore, the court held that the delivery of possession of the watan land handed over to the Appellants pursuant to the Additional Commissioner's would not entitle ownership right to the Appellant.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant preferred the Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Observation

Denying ownership rights to the Appellants, the Supreme Court observed that the harmonious construction between the three legislation needs to be made in order to arrive at the correct position of law.

Therefore, in that regard, the Supreme Court referred to the Tenancy Act, wherein Section 32 entitled the ownership right to the tenants holding Wantan Land on the 'Tillers Day'. Section 32 that every tenant shall be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day, the land held by him as a tenant.

Moreover, the court also referred to the Abolition Act, whereby as per Section 8 all incidents appertaining to the said Watans, including the right to hold office and Watan property, stood extinguished.

In other words, the effect of the 'Abolition Act' and 'Tenancy Act' on the '1874 Act' was that if the tenancy over the 'watan land' is operating on the 'Tiller's Day', then by virtue of the Abolition Act, the Watandar right to claim ownership over the tenanted watan property stands extinguished and by virtue of the Tenancy Act the Tenants deemed to have purchased land on Tillers' day.

“Therefore, after the advent of the Abolition Act, Patel Watan land which was lawfully leased, and the lease of which was subsisting as on 01.01.1963, stood covered by the Tenancy Act in its entirety and the tenant of such Watan land was entitled to all the benefits under the provisions thereof, including the right to purchase such land.”, the court said.

The Appellants contended that since the Abolition Act came into operation on 01.01.1963, and the possession of the tenanted property was already vested in them by the order dated 22.04.1962, therefore, the Abolition Act couldn't take away their right to ownership over the Watan Land.

Rejecting such contention, the Supreme Court stressed the point that the tenancy was lawfully subsisting on 01.04.1957, i.e., Tillers' Day, making the tenants exercise their right of statutory purchase of these tenanted agricultural Watan lands under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act in terms of Section 8 of the Abolition Act.

“On the above analysis, we hold that it was not open to the appellants to proceed against the tenants under the provisions of Sections 5, 11 and 11A of the 1874 Act after the death of Balaji Chimnaji More, the original Watandar, in February/March, 1958. This is because the provisions of the Tenancy Act were very much applicable to the subject lands by then and more so, Sections 29 and 31 thereof. Therefore, the legal heirs of the original Watandar could not have taken lawful possession of these lands from the tenants pursuant to the order dated 18.04.1961 passed under Sections 5, 11 and 11A of the 1874 Act. The same was rightly held to be invalid in the revisionary order dated 03.05.1982 and that finding was correctly held to be justified by the Bombay High Court.”, the court observed.

“We also hold that the tenancy was lawfully subsisting on 01.04.1957, i.e., Tillers' Day, and the tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase of these tenanted agricultural Watan lands under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act in terms of Section 8 of the Abolition Act, after the exemption afforded by Section 88CA ceased to exist. That right became operational on 27.11.1964, when these Watan lands were regranted to the heirs of the original Watandar.”, the court added.

Conclusion

Based on the above premise, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court, and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Brij Koshor Sah, Adv. Ms. Apurva, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Avinish Kumar Saurabh, Adv. Mr. Ajit Pravin Wagh, Adv. Mr. Ramnesh Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. M/S. S.M. Jadhav And Company, AOR Mr. Sushil Sonkar, Adv. Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR M/S. S.M. Jadhav And Company, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) *Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pramod Gore, Adv. Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, Adv. Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Adv. Mr. Prashant Pakhiddey, Adv. Mr. Manav Gill, Adv. Mr. Byron Sequeria, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR 2 Ms. Kavya S. Lokande, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vidrendra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Kamble, Adv. Ms. Sandhya S. Pawar, Adv. Ms. Madhvi S. Sawant, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR Mr. Omkar Jayant Deshpande, Adv. Mrs. Pradnya Shashibhushan Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Rana Sandeep Bussa, Adv. Mr. Col. Amit Kumar, Adv. M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. N.V. Vechalekar, Adv. Mr. Eeshan D. Khaire, Adv. Ms. Niharika Tanneru, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. C.K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR Mr. Omkar Jayant Deshpande, Adv. Mrs. Pradnya Shashibhushan Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Rana Sandeep Bussa, Adv. Col. Amit Kumar, Adv.

Case Title: Baban Balaji More (Dead) by LRs. & others Versus Babaji Hari Shelar (Dead) by LRs. & others

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment