//
archives

BombayTenancy

This tag is associated with 1 post

Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948= A proceeding under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, was initiated by one Rama Dattu Naikwade, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, for determination of price of the land on the plea that he shall be deemed to have purchased the land.=The Additional Tahsildar & ALT, Radhanagari, at the first instance, held that the land in question was leased out for growing sugarcane and, accordingly, dropped the proceeding. = Section 43A of the Bombay Tenancy Act was exempting certain categories of the cultivation of the land and the persons cultivating it for growing sugarcane, for making improvement in the financial and social status of the peasants using the land for growing sugarcane, fruits or flowers or for the breeding of livestock. The words which are used in sub-clause (b) of Section 43A(1) clearly provide that such exemption was available to the leases of land granted by “any bodies” or “persons” other than those mentioned in clause (a) for cultivation of sugarcane or the growing of fruits or flowers or for breeding of livestock. The words used in sub-clause (b) “any bodies” or “persons” cannot be made applicable to a single person. Such an attempt would be throttling the spirit of enacting Section 43A of the Bombay Tenancy Act…………..”= INTERPRETATION OF WORD ” PERSONS ” = “Section 13 – Gender and number. In all Bombay Acts or Maharashtra Acts, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, – (a) words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and (b) words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa.”= It is relevant here to state that the High Court has not come to the conclusion that there is anything repugnant in the subject or context so as to come to the conclusion that the plural will not include the singular. We have examined the use of the plural word “persons” from that angle and we do not find that there is anything repugnant in the subject or context so that it may not be read as singular. It is worth mentioning here that sub-section (b) of Section 43A(1) of the Act has also used the plural expression “leases” and if we accept the reasoning of the High Court, the aforesaid provision shall cover only such cases where there is more than one lease. This, in our opinion, will defeat the very purpose of the Act. Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court is vulnerable on both the counts and, hence, cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Tribunal is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

PUBLISHED IN    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40605    REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1675 OF 2004 GOVINDA BALA PATIL (D) BY LRS. APPELLANTS VERSUS GANPATI RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADE (D) BY LRS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J. This appeal arises out of a proceeding under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,038 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com