SAHADU BALA BOTRE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.versusNAMDEO BAPUJI KERALA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

A           SAHADU BALA BOTRE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.
                                         v.
         NAMDEO BAPUJI KERALA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

                               FEBRU,~RY       14, 1996

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Jl]

            Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948:

            Sections 29(1), 63, 64, 84-A-Validation of sale deed-Held, specific
C embargo created by second proviso to s.29 which is mandat01y and beneficial
    to the tenant-Refusing the grant of validation of the sale in favour of
    appellant well justified.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 563 of
    1996.
D
         From the Judgment and Order dated 17/18.6.70 of the Bombay High
    Court in S.C.A. No. 1133 of 1964.                                  '.

            A.S. Bhasme for the Appellants.

E           V.N. Ganpule, Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         The only question in this appeal is whether the interpretation put by
  the High Court on second proviso to Section 84A of the Bombay Tenancy
p and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 is correct? The appeal arise from the
  judgment dated June 17/18, 1970 of Bombay High Court made in SCA No.
  1133/64. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant had purchased along
  with another undivided interest in Survey No. 59 of a total extent of 106
  acres situated in Sadavadi Village, Taluka Mawal in Pune District in which
G it is found as a fact that the respondent Namdeo Bapuji Kerala was the
  tenant. After unsuccessful attempt before Revenue Forums the appellant
  filed an application under Section 84A for validation of the sale deed which
  the appellant had. Though the Revenue forums found that the appellant
  and the respondent Sahadu Bala Batre and Namdeo Bapuji Kerala were·
  tenants in common, in Appeal No. 21/1957 by order dated February. 28,
H 1958 it was held that Sahadu Bala Batre was not the tenant. That order
                                       . 640
 ~   I

                  SAHADU BALA B01RE v. NAMDEO BAPUJI KERALA                        641

         had become final. Thereby the respondent become the soie tenant of the           A
         land. The question then is : whether validation of the sale could be
         granted? Section 84A reads thus :

                 "84A. (1) A transfer of any land in contravention of section 63 or
                 64 as it stood before the commencement of the Amending Act,
                 1955, made after the 28th day of December, 1948 (when the                B
                 Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, came into
                 force) and before the 15th day of June, 1955, shall not be declared
                 to be invalid merely on the ground that such transfer was made in
                 contravention of the said sections if the transferee pays to the State
                 Government a penalty equal to one per cent of the consideration          C
                 or Rs. 100 whichever is less :.

                     Provided that, if such transfer is made by the landlord in favour
                 of the tenant in actual possession, the penalty leviable in respect
                 thereof shall be one rupee:
                                                                                          D
                     Provided further that if any such transfer is made by the
                 landlord in favour of any person other than the tenant in actual
                 possession, and such transfer is made either after the unlawful
                 eviction of such tenant, or results in the eviction of the tenant in
                 actual possession1 then such transfer shall not be deemed to be          E
                 validated (unless such tenant has failed to apply for the possession
                 of the land under sub-section (1) of section 29 within two years
                 from the date of his eviction from the land).
_.
                 (2) On payment of such penalty, the· Mamlatdar shall issue a
                 certificate to the transferee that such transfer is not invalid.         F

                 (3) Where the transferee fails to pay the penalty referred to in
                 sub-section (1) within such period as may be prescribed, the
                 transfer shall be de~lared by the Mamlatdar to be invalid and
                 thereupon the provisions of sub-section (2) to (5) of Section 84C G
                 shall apply."

         We are concerned with the second proviso in this case, the main part of
         sub-section (1) postulates that a transfer of any land in contravention of
         Section 63 or 64 as it stood before the commencement of 1955 Amending
         Act, made, after December 28, 1948 and before June 15, 1955, i.e., when          H
    642                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1996] 2 S.C.R.
                                                                                     ,~,
                                                                                      '

A the Amending Act was brought into force, shall not be declared to be
    invalid merely. on the ground that such transfer was made in contravention
    of Section 63 or 64 provided that the transferee pays to the Government a
    penalty equal to 1% of the consideration ,or Rs. 100 whichever is less.
    Nonetheless the second proviso seeks to protect interest of the cultivating
    tenant. It says that if such transfer is made by the landlord in favour of any
B   person other than the tenant in actual possession, and such transfer is made
    either after the unlawful eviction of such tenant, or results in the eviction
    of the tenant in actual possession, then such transfer shall not be deemed
    to be validated unless such tenant has failed to apply for possession of the
    land under sub-section (1) of Section 29 within two years from the date of
C   his eviction from such land. The later clause dealing with Section 29(1)
    does not apply to the facts of the case. If validation of the sale results in
    dispossession of the respondent tenant, it should not be made. Therefore,
    in view of the specific embargo created by the second proviso which is
    mandatory and beneficial to the tenant, the authorities below were well
D   justified in refusing the grant of validation of the sale made in favour of
    the appellant.

             The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without
    costs.

    G.N.                                                       Appeal dismissed.




                                                                                          -