State of Maharashtra and another vs Khatua Makanji and Company Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and others

T.D. Sugla, J.—The facts in these two appeals are common and in a narrow compass. The first respondent in each appeal (original petitioners) are the owners of the agricultural lands in which some tribals were the tenants since 1955. u/s 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 19A8 (for short "Tenancy Act"), the tenants became purchasers on Tillers'' Day i.e. April 1, 1957 subject to the other provisions of that section and the succeeding sections. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal (for short the Tribunal'') commenced proceedings u/s 32-G of the Tenancy Act in the year 1960 to ascertain whether those tenants were willing to purchase the land. The Tribunal determined purchase price of the said land at the rate of Rs. 800/-per acre. The aggrieved landlords preferred appeals before the Prant Officer, Thane who remitted back the proceedings to the Tribunal for redeterminating the purchase price. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, statements were made by the tenants to the effect that they were not willing to purchase the lands in dispute which they were cultivating. On the basis of statements made by them the Tribunal passed orders declaring that the tenants were not willing to purchase the lands, and, therefore, the purchases in their favour had become ineffective. As a consequence the possession of the lands was also made over to the landlords on 6th June 1962 in terms of Section 32-P of the Tenancy Act. This order of the Tribunal is final as the tenants had not challenged the same.

The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled* Tribes Act, 1974 (for short "Restoration Act") became an effective Act on 28th May 1975. Section 3 thereof provided for restoration or transfer of lands to Tribals in certain cases. Section 4 provided for restoration of lands of persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The relevant provision for the purpose of these appeals lays down that if the agricultural lands were transferred by a tribal to a non-tribal during the period commencing from 1st April 1957 and ending 6th July 1974 or if the agricultural lands belonging to the Scheduled Tribes were purchased or deemed to have been purchased by a non-tribal during the said period, the Collector suo motu or on an application by the Tribals, after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, shall direct that the lands so transferred or purchased or deemed to have been purchased should be restored to the Tribals etc. etc.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer held that the lands had not been converted to non-agricultural use prior to July 6, 1974, that the same were transferred to the landlords during the period from April 1, 1957 and July 6,1974 and that, therefore, the tenants were entitled to the restoration of possession. The petitioners carried appeals before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay which were dismissed and that has given rise to the filing of the writ petitions in this Court by the landlords (respondents herein) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The short point that requires consideration in these appeals is whether the disputed agricultural lands were transferred by the Tribal tenants to the landlords during the material period. Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, no doubt, provides that on April 1, 1957 the tenants shall be deemed to have purchased the lands from their landlords subject to the provisions of that section and succeeding sections. Obviously, this provision is subject to the conditions laid down in that section and succeeding Sections 32A to 32R. Section 32G in particular inter alia provides that the Tribunal shall first ascertain whether the tenants were willing to purchase the land. If it was found that the tenants were not willing to purchase the land in terms of sub-section (3), the Tribunal would make an order declaring that the tenant was not willing to purchase the land and that the purchase had become ineffective. On the other hand, if the tenant was found willing to purchase the land, the Tribunal was required to determine the purchase price of land in accordance with the provisions of Section 32H and Section 63A(3). The purchase was also to become ineffective as laid down in Section 32M on the failure of the tenants to pay the purchase price. Reading the provisions of Sections 32 and 32A to 32R particularly Sections 32G and 32M, it is evident that in terms of Section 32 the tenants do not really become purchasers and get only a right to purchase the land subject to the fulfilment of conditions of that section and succeeding sections. In other words, legal title over the agricultural lands does not vest in the tenants until all such conditions are satisfied including the payment of purchase price of lands. There is no dispute that in the case before us the tenants having categorically stated that they were not willing to purchase the lands in dispute, the Tribunal had declared the purchases to be ineffective. Tenants having never become owners of the agricultural lands in dispute, we find it difficult to appreciate how could they transfer the same to any body including the landlords herein.

The thrust of Shri Shinde''s argument has been that u/s 32 the tenants were deemed to have purchased the lands. If the purchase became ineffective on account of certain acts of omission and commission on the part of the tenants, the case could not be equated with a case of no purchase having taken place at all. It will be, according to him, a case of purchase by the tenants and then repurchase by the landlords. In order to appreciate Sri Shinde''s submission, it is desirable to refer to the provisions of Section 2(1)(i) of the Restoration Act which defines the word ''transfer'':

"(i) "transfer" in relation to land means the transfer of land belonging to a tribal made in favour of a non-tribal during the period commencing on the 1st day of April 1957 and ending on the 6th day of July 1974, either -

(a) by act of parties, whether by way of sale, gift, exchange, mortgage or lease or any other disposition made inter-vivos, or

(b) under a decree or order of Court, or

(c) for recovering any amount of land revenue due from such Tribal, or for recovering any other amount due from him as an arrear of land revenue, or otherwise under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 or any other law for the time being in force but does not include a transfer or land falling under the proviso to sub-section (3) of the Code; and the expressions. "Tribal-transferor" and "non-Tribal-transferee" shall be construed, accordingly."

It is evident that subject matter of ''transfer'' in the definition clause is "land belonging lo a tribal". The use of expression "belonging to a Tribal" after the expression of "transfer of land", to our mind, makes it abundantly clear that the question of transfer can arise only if the agricultural land belonged to the Tribal i.e. the title in the agricultural land vested in the Tribal. We have already held that the title in the disputed land never vested in the Tribal tenants in this case as the purchases became ineffective at the very threshold when they made statements that they were not willing to purchase the lands. In the circumstances, we do not see any difficulty in holding that the tribals herein had not transferred any agricultural lands belonging to them to the respondents nor were the respondents deemed to have purchased these lands during the material period from them and consequently Sections 3 and 4 of the Restoration Act have no application in this case.

In the above view of the matter, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.