“Ownership Vested Under Land Reform Laws Cannot Be Taken Away On Technicalities”: Bombay High Court Sets Aside 1975 Order Evicting Tenant For Non-Cultivation
The Court said that mere failure to cultivate personally, in the absence of abandonment or transfer, is not enough to divest a deemed purchaser of land.
Justice Amit Borkar, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has set aside a 1975 order passed by the tenancy authority evicting a statutory deemed purchaser of agricultural land on the ground of non-cultivation, holding that failure to cultivate the land personally, without parting possession or misuse, cannot by itself justify resumption under Section 32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed, “Ownership so vested is a product of statutory compulsion arising from social welfare and land reform policies adopted by the State. In such a context, the right conferred upon the tenant to become owner of the land is not contractual or discretionary, but statutory and compulsorily vested, unless divested in accordance with express and strictly construed provisions of the Act.”
The Court added, “Such power must be exercised cautiously and sparingly, considering the serious consequence of extinguishment of vested ownership rights.”
Senior Advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate P.R. Katneshwarkar represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners challenged a common judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, which had reversed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, thereby restoring a 1975 eviction order passed under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
The father of Petitioner No.1 had been declared a deemed purchaser of the subject land under Section 32G by an order dated June 22, 1964. After deposit of the purchase price, a certificate under Section 32M was issued on July 29, 1972.
However, by virtue of two orders passed in 1975, the Mamlatdar held that the land was not cultivated personally and passed eviction orders under Sections 32R and 32P. The Petitioners discovered this only in 2008 and challenged it subsequently.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court framed the key issue as, “Whether the mere failure of the tenant to cultivate the land personally, in absence of proof of abandonment or unlawful transfer of possession, would justify resumption of land under Section 32R of the Tenancy Act?”
The Court explained, “Section 32R is not a standalone penal section. It works along with Section 32P. When the Collector finds that the buyer has failed to personally cultivate the land without any just cause, Tribunal may use Section 32R to hold the tenant liable, and then use Section 32P(2) or Section 84C to redistribute the land.”
The Court noted, “Temporary inability due to economic hardship, illness, old age, or other reasonable grounds cannot be treated as sufficient to extinguish ownership. It is also settled law that when a right is statutorily vested in a person under a beneficial legislation, it cannot be taken away on mere technicalities.”
The Bench clarified that the real purpose of Section 32R is not to undo the reform, but to control its misuse, and ensure that only those who continue to cultivate the land personally enjoy the benefit of ownership.
On procedural fairness, the Court observed, “The inquiry appears to have been done only for formality’s sake and did not ensure that the tenant’s legal rights were explained to him or that he was given a real chance to put forth his case… the way in which the tenant’s eviction was ordered does not meet the standard of a ‘formal inquiry’ under Section 32P(1) and fails the test of fairness in law.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amrut Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade (1983), and stated, “A tenant’s statement giving up possession should not be taken seriously if it was made in ignorance of legal rights.”
Setting aside the orders passed in 1975 and 2019, the Court held, “Although the ground of non-cultivation was factually made out, the decision to evict the tenant was not legally sustainable, because relevant factors were ignored.”
The Bench further added, “The failure to cultivate must be of a serious kind… it must be clearly shown that the tenant consciously and voluntarily stopped cultivating the land, and that such non-cultivation was for a long period and done with the intention to give up the land permanently.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Cause Title: Vitthal Thaku Jagdale & Anr. v. Nitin Suresh Kadam & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:20305)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar
Respondents: Senior Advocate P.R. Katneshwarkar; AGP V.S. Nimbalkar; Advocates Sagar Kursija, Kushi Verma, Rajesh More
