Amrit Bhikaji Kale & Ors Vs.
Kashinath Janardhan Trade & ANR [1983] INSC 69 (11 May 1983)
DESAI, D.A.
DESAI, D.A.
MISRA RANGNATH
CITATION: 1983 SCR (3) 237 1983 SCC (3) 437
1983 SCALE (1)632
ACT:
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948,
Section 32. scope of-Legal effects of (i) a will executed by the landlord in
his life time after the tenant became the "deemed purchaser" and
hence the land-owner on 1.4.1957 and (ii) the proceedings taken on The basis of
the will including mutation of the name of the legatee, postponement of sales
under Sections 32F and 32G, entertainment of the suit by the Tenancy Aval
Karkoon filed under Sections 14 and 29 of the Art, the dispossession. Of the
deemed purchaser and the further sale by the recorded owner.
Estoppel by conduct-Whether a statement made
by a tenant, who has become a deemed purchaser under The Act, under the mistake
or ignorance of such a fact, before the Tenancy Tribunal, agreeing for the
delivery of possession amount to estoppel.
HEADNOTE:
Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as amended from time to time provided that on the
1st day of April, 1957 styled as the "tiller's day" every tenant
shall subject to other provisions of the next succeeding sections be deemed to
have purchased from his landlord free from all encumbrance subsisting thereon,
on the said date the land held by him as a tenant if other conditions of the
section are satisfied. By operation of this law, one Janardhan, the father of
the respondent, became the "deemed purchaser" effective from April
1,1957, of the land bearing survey No. 1052 and F measuring 16 acres situated
within the revenue limits of village Sonai Taluka Nawasa, District Ahmednagar
which belonged to Tarachand Chopra.
Subsequent to this admitted fact, several
incidents took place which have led to the present appeal raising the question
of the legal effect of the several steps taken by different persons; ignorant
of the factum of Janardhan having become the deemed purchaser". They are-(a)
Landlord Tarachand died on August 12,1959, after two and a quarter years after
Janardhan became the statutory purchaser; (ii) Tarachand executed a will,
before his death, bequeathing the suit land to Ashoklal Gugale, a minor; (iii)
the revenue authorities, who must be aware of the provisions of the Act,
wrongly mutated the name of Ashoklal in the revenue records as the landlord in
terms of the will; (iv) in spite of the mandatory duty imposed upon the
Agricultural Lands Tribunal, under Section 32G, to issue notice to all tenants
who under section 32 are deemed to have purchased the lands, all landlords of
such lands and all other persons interested to appear before 238 it for the
determination of the price of the land which is the subject matter of compulsory
purchase, strangely accepted the plea for the postponement of the inquiry under
section 32F of the Act and later again commenced the proceedings in the year
1967 and concluded the proceedings by its order dated July 13 1967 repeating
the jurisdictional errors; (v) in the interregnum, Ashoklal through his next
friend commenced proceedings in case No. 36 of 1967 in the Court of Tenancy
Aval Karkoon for the recovery of the possession; (vi) the Tenancy Aval Karkoon,
not only entertained the petition, but also got recorded two statements, on
5.10.1967, from Janardhan, "the deemed purchaser" to the effect that
he had no objection to handing over the possession of the land to the landlord
as he was old and could not cultivate the land personally and another from the
present respondent to the same effect even though in the life time of his
father Janardhan, he had no title to the land involved in the dispute, and,
thereafter made the order dated October 6, 1967 exacting Janardhan from the
land; (vii) this wholly null and void order enabled the minor landlord to sell
the land by a registered deed on November 13, 1967 to one Haribhav and another,
the former later transferred his interest in favour of some of the petitioners
before the High Court; (viii) On October 6, 1971, Janardhan moved the Tribunal
under section 32F of the Act to the effect that as the landlord Ashoklal had
attained majority he was entitled to purchase the land; (ix) the Tribunal
started the proceedings under section 32G and after bringing the present
respondent on record due to the demise of Janardhan on November 29, 1976, went
into the matter in depth, examined all previous orders and came to the
conclusion that Janardhan having become the "deemed purchaser.' all
subsequent. proceedings were null and void, which was affirmed by the Assistant
Collector, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the High Court later; (x) a
parallel proceeding initiated by the respondent for the recovery of possession
was decided in his favour by all Courts including the High Court Dismissing the
appeals by the special leave, the Court.
HELD: 1:1 on the tiller's day, the landlord's
interest in the land gets extinguished and simultaneously by a statutory sale
without anything more by the parties, the extinguished title of the landlord is
kindled or created in the tenant. That very moment landlord-tenant relationship
as understood ill common law or Transfer of Property Act comes to an end, the
link and chain is broken. The absent non- cultivating landlord ceases to have
that ownership element on the land and the cultivating tenant, the tiller of
the soil becomes the owner thereof. This is unquestionable, the landlord from
the date of statutory sale is only entitled to receive the purchase price as
determined by the Tribunal under section 32G. In other words, landlord ceases
to be landlord and the tenant becomes the owner of the land and comes in direct
contact with the state. Without any act of transfer inter vivos the title of
the landlord is extinguished and is created simultaneously in the tenant making
the tenant the deemed purchaser. It is an admitted position that on April 1,
1957 Tarachand was the landlord and Janardhan was the tenant Tarachand landlord
was under no disability as envisaged by Section 32F. Therefore or April 1, 1957
Janardhan became deemed purchaser. [244 C-G] 239 Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v.
State of Bombay, [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 489 @ 518 followed.
1:2. If, in the instant case., Janardhan
became the deemed purchaser on tillers' day, the relationship of landlord and
tenant between Tarachand and Janardhan came to be extinguished and no right
could be claimed either by Tarachand or anyone claiming through him such as
Ashoklal or the present purchasers on the footing that they are the owners of
the land on or after April 1, 1957. [244 G-H, 245 A] 2:1. Section 32F of the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, has no application to the
facts of the ease. Section 32F postponed the date of compulsory purchase by the
tenant where the landlord is a minor or a widow or a person subject to mental
or physical disability on the tillers' day. Section 32F has an overriding
effect over Section 32 as it opens with a non-obstante clause. The combined
effect of Section 32F and 32 would show that there the landlord is under no
disability as envisaged by Section 32F the tenant of such landlord by operation
of law would become the deemed purchaser but where the landlord is of a class
or category as set out in section 32F such as a minor, a widow or a person
subject to any mental or physical disability, the date o, compulsory sale would
be postponed as therein provided. Now, if Tarachand the landlord was under no
disability and he was alive on April 1, 1957 and he was the owner, his tenant
Janardhan became the deemed purchaser. [245 A-D] 2:2. If Janardhan became the
deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957 all subsequent proceedings in which the
Tribunal held that the date of purchase was postponed because the recorded
owner Ashoklal was a minor were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal had
absolutely no jurisdiction to proceed on the footing that date of sale was
postponed. It is neither an incorrect order nor an erroneous order as was
sought to be made out but Tribunal lacked tho jurisdiction to proceed under
section 32F because when the proceedings under Section 32F were commenced,
Janardhan had long since become the deemed purchaser. Therefore all subsequent
proceedings were ab initio void and without jurisdiction.
[245 D-F] 2:3. When a Tribunal of limited
jurisdiction clutches at a jurisdiction by ignoring a statutory provision and
its consequences in law on the status of parties or by a decision wholly
unwarranted with regard to the jurisdictional fact, its decision is a nullity
and can be set up in collateral proceeding. The Tribunal clutched at a
jurisdiction not vested in it and in such a situation it cannot be disputed
that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding
purporting to be between landlord and tenant on the erroneous assumption that
tenant was still a tenant though he had long since become the deemed purchaser,
The tenant has ceased to be a tenant much prior to the orders passed by the
Tribunal on April 24, 1961 and July 13, 1967 holding that the date of
compulsory purchase was postponed. The compulsory purchase by the operation of
law had taken place as early as April 1, 1957 and that legal position cannot be
wished away. [245 F-H, 246 A-Bl 240 3:1 When several orders passed by different
authorities are wholly null and void and hence non est, such orders cannot
thwart subsequent proceedings. The nullity can be set up in subsequent
proceedings. The plea of estoppel by conduct also cannot be allowed to be
raised, since a measure of agrarian reform cannot be permitted to be defeated
by such devious means of the landlords trying to take advantage of any
statement made contrary to their legally protected interest, in the absence of
legal literacy and by such jugglery of orders of low level revenue officers who
hardly knew what they were doing.
[246 C-H, 247 G] 3:2. In the instant case,
even assuming Janardhan relinquished his right as a tenant, even then Ashoklal
cannot recover possession as the land would be at the disposal of the Collector
under Section 32P. Further, the posthaste steps taken by Ashoklal and others in
transferring the lands to several others speak of malafides of the landlord.
[246E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 174 of 1981.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and
order dated the 4th September, 1980 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
No. 2155 of 1979.
U.R. Lalit, C.B. Singh and P.H. Parekh for
the Appellants.
Jitendra Sharma for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J. Land bearing Survey No. 1052 admeasuring 16 acres situated within the
revenue limits of Village Sonai Taluka Nawasa Distt. Ahmendnagar, belonged to
Tarachand Chopra Janardhan, the father of the respondent was admittedly the
tenant of this land on April 1, 1957. Sec. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended from time to time provided that on the
1st day of April, 1957 styled as the tillers' day every tenant shall subject to
other provisions of the section and the provisions of the next succeeding
sections be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free from all
encumbrances subsisting thereon on the same date the land held by him as a
tenant if other conditions of the section are satisfied.
Thus by operation of law, Janardhan, who was
the tenant of the land on the tillers' day became the deemed purchaser thereof.
Landlord Tarachand died on August 12, 1959. Before his death, landlord
Tarachand had executed a will and bequeathed the suit land to Ashoklal Gugale
who was petitioner No. 5 before the High Court Acting upon the will of
Tarachand, Ashoklal got his 241 name mutated in the revenue record in respect
of suit land in his favour as owner. On the date of mutation, Ashoklal was a
minor. A Sec. 32-G imposes a statutory duty on the Agricultural l and Tribunal
('Tribunal' for short) to commence enquiry for determining the price of the
land which is the subject matter of compulsory purchase. The Tribunal is
required to issue notice to (a) all tenants who u/s 32 are deemed to have
purchased the lands (b) all landlords of such lands and (c) all other persons
interested therein to appear before it on the date specified in the notice.
Pursuant to such notice when the parties
appeared before the Tribunal it was claimed on behalf of landlord that
Ashoklal, the recorded owner was a minor and therefore the sale was postponed
u/s 32-F. The Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction in not noticing the
obvious fact that the relevant date on which compulsory sale takes place is
April 1, 1957 and on that date Tarachand Chopra the landlord was the recorded
owner and he was under no disability as envisaged by sec. 32-F and therefore
the sale had become effective and could not be postponed u/s 32-F. However, the
Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by mis-stating an obvious
irrelevant fact that as recorded owner was a minor, compulsory sale was
postponed as envisaged by sec. 32-F. It appears that the Tribunal again
commenced proceedings in the year 1967 u/s 32-G and concluded the proceedings
by its order dated July 13, 1967 repeating the jurisdictional errors and
thereby failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. In the meantime, minor
landlord through his next friend commenced proceedings in Case No. 36 of 1967
in the court of Tenancy Avail Karkoon having jurisdiction in the area for recovery
of possession from tenant Janardhan who had become a deemed purchaser, u/s 14
read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act Sec. 14 enables the landlord to recover
possession if tenant commits default in payment of rent for certain number of
years. The Tenancy Avail Karkoon entertained the petition which it had no
jurisdiction because there was no subsisting relationship of landlord and
tenant between Ashoklal and Janardhan as Janardhan had already become deemed
purchaser on April 1, 1957. However, the Tenancy Aval Karkoon taking note of
the earlier decisions of the Tribunal holding that the date of compulsory sale
was postponed directed possession to be handed over to the landlord holding
that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent.
Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant
at this stage pointed out that in the proceeding u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of
the Tenancy Act, the tenant Janardan had made a Statement on October 5, 1967
242 that he had no objection to handing over possession of the land to A the
land to the landlord as he was old and could not cultivate the land personally.
On the same day, surprisingly the Tenancy Aval Karkoon also recorded the
statement of present respondent that in the lifetime of his father Janardhan he
had no title to the land involved in the dispute. It appears that the Tenancy
Aval Karkoon made the order dated oct. 6, 1967 evicting Janardhan from the land
on the footing that he was a tenant liable to pay rent and had committed
defaults. This wholly null and void order enabled the minor landlord to sell
the land by a registered deed on Nov. 13, 1967 to the petitioner No. 1 and one
Haribhav and the latter in turn transferred his interest in favour of other
petitioners, Misled by the two orders of the Tribunal holding that the sale was
postponed Janardhan served a notice on oct. 6, 1971 as envisaged by sec. 32-F
that as the landlord has attained majority he is entitled to purchase the land
and that the price of land be determined. Presumably, pursuant to this notice,
the Tribunal commenced proceedings under sections 32-G and 32-F of the Tenancy
Act for determining the purchase price. It was contended on behalf of the
petitioners transferees from Ashoklal before the Tribunal that as Janardhan has
already handed over possession to Ashoklal he had no subsisting interest in the
land and therefore he had no right to purchase the land u/s 32-F and that the
proceedings be dropped. This contention found favour with the Tribunal which
overlooked the legal position that Janardhan had become the deemed purchaser on
April 1, 1957. Janardhan died on November 29, 1976 leaving respondent his son
as the sole heir. After the death of Janardhan an enquiry was commenced to
ascertain whether Janardhan the deceased tenant had already become the deemed
purchaser on April 1, 1957 and that all the subsequent proceedings were
Abington void. There were some proceedings in between u/s 84 which are hardly
relevant The Tribunal went into the matter in depth, examined all proviso
orders and finally reached an affirmative conclusion that on April 1, 1957
Tarachand was the recorded landlord and being under no disability and Janardhan
being tenant of the land, by operation of law, Janardhan become the deemed
purchaser and all subsequent proceedings were null, void and non est. The
Tribunal accordingly determined the purchase price. The present petitioners
after unsuccessfully appealing to the Assistant Collector and the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal u/s 76 of the Tenancy Act, reached the High Court under
Article 2 27, 243 A parallel proceeding was initiated by the respondent u/s 84
of the Tenancy Act for recovery of possession which was illegally taken from
him. The Assistant Collector held that occupation of the suit land by the
petitioners was contrary to the provisions of law as Janardhan had already
become the deemed purchaser and no title could be acquired by the petitioners
from the sale by Ashoklal and therefore the respondent is entitled to recover
possession. The direction was issued to hare over possession to the respondent.
This order was confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision as per
its judgment dated July 16, 1973. Two petitions were moved by
transferee-petitioners in the High Court of Bombay against two orders one of
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in a proceeding u/s 32-G and another in a
proceeding u/s 84 against the present respondent. The learned Single Judge of
the High Court by a common judgment dismissed bottle the petitions of the
petitioners holding that as Janardhan had become the deemed purchaser on the
tillers' day i.e. April 1, 1957 all subsequent proceedings u/s 32-F were an
initio void and without jurisdiction and nullity is the eyes of law. The High
Court also held that the petitioners acquired no title under the purported sale
by Ashoklal because Ashoklal had no title to the land have receiving the
purchase price from Janardhan or his heir as determined u/s 32-G. The High
Court accordingly dismissed both the petitions with costs. Hence these two
appeals by special leave.
Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants strenuously urged that the orders made by the Tribunal u/s 32-F
and by the Tenancy Aval Karkoon in a proceeding u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the
Tenancy Act and the statement of Janardhan and the respondent would clearly
show that these orders were at best erroneous but not void and cannot be
ignored as nullity in subsequent proceedings.
The Tenancy Act was comprehensively amended
by Amending Act IS of 1957. The amendment brought in a revolutionary measure of
agrarian reforms making tiller of the soil the owner of the land. This was done
to achieve the object of removing all intermediaries between tillers of the
soil and the State. Sec. 32 provides that by mere operation of law, every tenant
of agricultural land situated in the area to which the Act applies shall become
by the operation of law, the owner thereof. He is declared to be a deemed
purchaser without anything more on his part. A Constitution Bench of this 244
Court in Sri Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay(1) held that: "the
title of the landlord to the land passes immediately to the tenant on the
tillers' day and there is a completed purchase or sale thereof as between the
landlord and the tenant. The title of the land which was vested originally in
the landlord passes to the tenant on the tillers' day and this title is
defeasible only in the event of the tenant failing to appear or making a
statement that he is not willing to purchase the land or commit default in
payment of the price thereto as determined by the Tribunal." Therefore, it
is unquestionably established that on the tillers' day, the landlord's interest
in the land gets extinguished and simultaneously by a statutory sale without
anything more by the parties, the extinguished title of the landlord is kindled
or created in the tenant. That very moment landlord-tenant relationship as
understood in common law or Transfer of Property Act comes to an end. The link
and chain is broken. The absent non-cultivating landlord ceases to have that
ownership element of the land and the cultivating tenant, the tiller of the
soil becomes the owner thereof this is unquestionable. The landlord from the
date of statutory sale is only entitled to receive the purchase price as
determined by the Tribunal u/s 32-G. In other words, the landlord ceases to be
landlord and the tenant becomes the owner of the land and comes in direct
contact with the State. Without any act of transfer inter vivos the title of
the landlord is extinguished and is created simultaneously in the tenant making
the tenant the deemed purchaser. It is an admitted position that on April 1,
1957 Tarachand was the landlord and Janardhan was the tenant.
Tarachand landlord was under no disability as
envisaged by sec. 32-F. Therefore on April 1, 1957 Janardhan became deemed
purchaser. and Mr. Lalit could not controvert this position.
If Janardhan became the deemed purchaser on
tillers' day, the relationship of landlord and tenant between Tarachand and
Janardhan came to be extinguished and no right could be claimed either by
Tarachand or anyone claiming through him such as Ashoklal or the present
purchasers on the footing that they are the 245 Owners of the land on or after
April 1, 1957. This basic fact is A incontrovertible.
It may be mentioned that sec. 32-F has no
application to the facts of this case. Section 32-F postponed the date of
compulsory purchase by the tenant where the landlord is a minor or a widow or a
person subject to mental or physical disability on the tillers' day. Sec. 32-F
bas an overriding effect-over s. 32 as it opens with a non-obstante clause.
The combined effect of sec. 32-F and 32 would
show that where the landlord is under no disability as envisaged by sec. 32-F
the tenant of such landlord by operation of law would become the deemed
purchaser but where the landlord is of a class or category as set out in sec.
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.
Now, if Tarachand, the landlord was under no disability and he was alive on
April 1, 1957 and he was the owner, his tenant Janardhan became the deemed
purchaser. This conclusion, in our opinion, is unassailable.
If Janardhan became the owner on April 1,
1957 all subsequent proceedings in which the Tribunal held that the date of
purchase was postponed because the recorded owner Ashoklal was a minor were
without jurisdiction. The Tribunal had absolutely no jurisdiction to proceed on
the footing that the date of sale was postponed. It is neither an incorrect
order nor an erroneous order as was sought to be made out but Tribunal lacked
the jurisdiction to proceed u/s. 32-F because when the proceedings u/s. 32-F
were commenced, Janardhan had long since become the deemed purchaser. Therefore
all sub- sequent proceedings were an initio void and without jurisdiction and
the High Court were right in holding that orders passed therein were nullity.
The attempt to overcome this position by
urging that the order was erroneous was rightly repelled by the High Court
holding that the orders were null and void, proceeding on an erroneous
assumption of jurisdictional fact that the recorded owner was a minor on the
tillers day. When a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction clutches at a jurisdiction
by ignoring a statutory provision and its consequences in law on the status of
parties or by a decision wholly unwarranted, with regard to the jurisdictional
fact, its decision is a nullity and can be set up in collateral proceeding. The
Tribunal clutched at a jurisdiction not vested in it and in such a situation it
cannot be 246 disputed that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain
any A proceeding purporting to be between landlord and tenant on the erroneous
assumption that tenant was still a tenant though he had long since become the
deemed purchaser. The tenant has ceased to be a tenant much prior to the orders
passed by the Tribunal on April 24, 1961 and July 13, 1967 holding that the
date of compulsory purchase was postponed. The compulsory purchase by the
operation of law had taken place as early as April 1, 1957 and that legal
position cannot be wished away.
Mr. Lalit, however, contended that the
statement of Janardhan in the proceeding u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the
Tenancy Act stating that he had become old and was unable to cultivate the land
and he is willing to hand over possession would estop the respondent from
contending to the contrary.
It was further urged that respondent himself
was present on the date on which Janardhan gave his statement on October S,
1967 and he concurred with the statement of Janardhan. 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 such devious means of the landlords. However apart from ignorance
of his position assuming that Janardhan relinquished his right as tenant,
landlord Ashoklal was nontheless not entitled to recover possession because,
when Janardhan, the deemed purchaser agreed to hand over possession subject to
the provision of sec. IS, the land would be at the disposal of Collector under
sec. 32 P. Landlord even in such a situation is not entitled to be restored to
possession without bringing his case under sec. 15 which appears not to be the
case of landlord. And look at the bona fides of the landlord.
Ashoklal as soon as he managed to obtain
wholly void order for possession, managed to transfer the lands to the
petitioners within a span of less than 2 weeks. It would thus appear that even
Ashoklal and his next friend must be presumably aware of the void character of
the order and therefore posthaste with a view to thwarting any further legal
proceeding and confuse Janardhan, Ashoklal through his next friend managed to
transfer the land to the petitioners and let the petitioners fight the deemed
purchaser. A measure whereby tenant was to be made the owner of the land cannot
be permitted to be defeated by such jugglery of orders by low-level revenue
officers who hardly knew what they were doing. Look at the lack of knowledge of
law of the Tribunal. While overlooking the relevant date and it took into
account the subsequent date which was wholly irrelevant and impermissible.
Though 247 landlord Tarachand had died much after 1.4.1957 in proceeding u/s
32-G minor Ashoklal whose name was mutated on death of A Tarachand, the
authority declared the sale having been postponed even though statute had
already operated and sale taken place. Can a statutory Tribunal charged with a
duty to implement the law betray such total lack of knowledge so as to be
counter-productive ? Same is the case with the decision of Tenancy Aval
Karkoon. A proceeding u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act, started on
the footing that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted should have
been thrown out at the threshold because a decade back the then tenant
Janardhan had become the deemed purchaser. Therefore these orders were wholly
null and void and hence non est and cannot thwart subsequent proceedings. The
nullity can be set up in subsequent proceedings.
Janardhan was deprived of his possession by
an order which had no legal sanction. He was deprived of possession on the
footing that he was a tenant ignoring and overlooking the statutory event that
he had become the owner. Even when the Legislature passed such a revolutionary
measure its knowledge was not transmitted to the persons for whose benefit the
measure was enacted and there was no awakening to one's right. Undoubtedly, a
communication gap and for want of legal literacy Janardhan was taken on a joy
ride and was illegally made to part with possession. Subsequently everyone realised
the blunder committed by them and therefore when the proceedings started on the
notice given by Janardhan, the Tribunal determined the price. Appeal of the
petitioners to Assistant Collector failed, revision petition to the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal at the instance of the petitioners failed so also the writ
petition u/s 227 of the petitioners failed. All authorities concurrently held
that Janardhan had become the owner and the Tribunal was right in determining
the price.
The authority u/s 84 held that petitioners
were not entitled to retain possession as their occupation was contrary to the
provisions of the Tenancy Act and they had acquired no title to the land by the
purported sale by Ashoklal. The direction for restoring possession to Janardhan
was rightly given. A revision petition and a writ petition to the High Court at
the instance of the petitioners failed.
248 We find that the High Court was right in
rejecting both the A petitions. These were all the contentions in this appeal
and as we find no merit in it, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
When this Court issued notice, appellants
were directed to deposit Rs. 1500 for costs of respondent. Respondent came here
in rags and urged that he was too poor to engage a counsel. We therefore direct
that the amount of Rs. 1500 deposited in this Court by appellants be paid to
respondent.
We record our appreciation of assistance to
the Court by Mr. Jitendra Sharma who appeared amicus curie at the request made
by the Court while granting special leave. He should withdraw the amount and
take all steps to pay the same to the respondent.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.
Back