Supreme Court Upholds Tenant Rights on Watan Land Post Abolition Act: Baban Balaji More vs. Babaji Hari Shelar (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 203

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J, Sanjay Kumar, J

Can a landlord evict a tenant from agricultural land based on the hereditary nature of the land ownership, or do tenancy laws offer protection? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case involving the interplay of three vintage legislations: the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962. The core issue revolved around whether the tenancy rights of individuals cultivating Watan land would be protected after the abolition of the Watan system, despite prior orders favoring the Watandar (hereditary office holder). The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over agricultural land that was originally part of a Patel Watan, a hereditary office. Balaji Chimnaji More, the predecessor of the appellants, held a Patel Watan, which included a 50% share in 20 acres of land in Survey No. 386 and a 50% share in 16 acres in Survey No. 410 of Village Chikhali. Babaji Hari Shelar and Ganapati Dhondiba Tapkir, the predecessors of the respondents, were cultivating this land as tenants since around 1955-56.

Balaji Chimnaji More passed away in February/March 1958. Following his death, his legal heirs (the appellants) filed an application on 14 June 1958, under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, seeking to recover possession of the land from the tenants. The Assistant Collector, I/C, Haveli Taluka, Poona, ruled on 18 April 1961, that the tenancy could not extend beyond the lifetime of the Watandar and ordered the land to be handed over to the appellants. Subsequently, the tenants appealed this decision, but their appeals were dismissed by the Additional Collector, Poona, on 27 March 1962, and later by the Additional Commissioner, Poona Division, Poona, on 12 June 1962. The possession of the lands was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased Watandar on 22 April 1962.

However, the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962, came into effect on 1 January 1963, abolishing all Patel Watans. The appellants applied for regrant of the land under Section 5 of the Abolition Act, which was granted on 27 November 1964. Meanwhile, the tenants filed a revision before the Government, which was allowed on 10 July 1964, setting aside the previous orders and directing the restoration of the land to the tenants. This order was challenged by the appellants, leading to a series of legal battles.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The legal battle began with the Assistant Collector’s order on 18 April 1961, which favored the Watandar’s heirs. This order was appealed by the tenants but was upheld by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner. However, the tenants filed a revision before the Government, which set aside the previous orders on 10 July 1964. The Watandar’s heirs then challenged this order, leading to the Bombay High Court remanding the matter to the Government for a rehearing on 25 March 1969. The Government, after rehearing, again ruled in favor of the tenants on 3 May 1982. This order was challenged by the Watandar’s heirs in the Bombay High Court, which dismissed their writ petition on 1 February 2005, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined three key legislations:

• The Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874: This Act governed Watan properties and the rights of Watandars. Section 5 of the Act restricted the ability of a Watandar to alienate or lease Watan land beyond their lifetime without government sanction.
  
  “5. (1) Without the sanction of the State Government, or in the case of a mortgage, charge, alienation, or lease of not more than thirty years, of the Commissioner it shall not be competent— (a) to a watandar to mortgage, charge, alienate or lease, for a period beyond the term of his natural life, any watan, or any part thereof, or any interest therein, to or for the benefit of any person who is not a watandar of the same watan; …..”
• The Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: This Act aimed to protect agricultural tenants. Section 88 of the Act exempted certain lands, including government lands, from its provisions. An Explanation was added to Section 88(1)(a) in 1958, clarifying that land held as inam or watan for service useful to Government and assigned as remuneration to the person actually performing such service shall be deemed to be land belonging to the Government.
  
  ‘[Explanation.- For the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of this section land held as inam or watan for service useful to Government and assigned as remuneration to the person actually performing such service for the time being, under Section 23 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, or any other law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to be land belonging to the Government.]’
  
  Section 88CA was inserted in the Tenancy Act in 1958, exempting certain service lands from Sections 32 to 32-R, 33-A, 33-B, and 33-C of the Act.
  
  ‘88CA. Sections 32 to 32R not to apply to certain service lands.- Nothing in sections 32 to 32-R (both inclusive), 33-A, 33-B, 33-C shall apply to land held as inam or watan for service useful to Government but not assigned as remuneration to the person actually performing such service for the time being under section 23 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, or any other law for the time being in force.’
  
  Section 29 and 31 of the Tenancy Act provided the procedure for taking possession of land and the mode and method in which a landlord could terminate the tenancy of any land, respectively.
• The Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962: This Act abolished the Patel Watan system. Section 3 of the Act extinguished all incidents appertaining to the Watans, including the right to hold office and Watan property. Section 5 provided for the regrant of Watan land to the Watandar. Section 8 provided that if any Watan land has been lawfully leased and such lease is subsisting on the appointed day, the provisions of the relevant tenancy law shall apply to the said lease.
  
  ‘8. Application of existing tenancy law- if any watan land has been lawfully leased and such lease is subsisting on the appointed day, the provisions of the relevant tenancy law shall apply to the said lease, and the rights and liabilities of the holder of such land and his tenant or tenants shall, subject to the provisions of this Part, be governed by the provisions of that law: Provided that, for the purposes of application of the provisions of the relevant tenancy law in regard to the compulsory purchase of land by a tenant, the lease shall be deemed to have commenced from the date of the regrant of the land under section 5 or 6 or 9, as the case may be.’

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants contended that the tenancy created by the father of the applicants could not extend beyond his lifetime, as per Section 5 of the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874. They argued that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 18.04.1961, which granted possession of the land to them, was valid.
• They argued that the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner were not maintainable as it was a second appeal, which is not allowed under the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874.
• The appellants submitted that the tenants were not in possession of the land on 01.01.1963, the date on which the Abolition Act came into force, as they had been dispossessed on 22.04.1962. Therefore, the tenancy was not subsisting on the appointed date.
• They claimed that the subject Watan lands were exempted from the provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, under Section 88, as they were government lands. They further submitted that Section 88CA of the Tenancy Act exempted these lands from Sections 32 to 32-R of the Act.
• They argued that the tenants should have challenged the regrant order dated 27.11.1964, under which the Watan lands were regranted to the appellants.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents contended that they were lawful tenants of the land and their tenancy rights were protected under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
• They argued that the order dated 18.04.1961 was not final as it was under challenge and, therefore, the tenancy was subsisting on 01.01.1963, when the Abolition Act came into force.
• They submitted that the subject Watan lands were not government lands as per the Explanation to Section 88(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, were not exempted from the provisions of the Tenancy Act. They further contended that the exemption under Section 88CA was limited and did not exclude the applicability of Sections 29 and 31 of the Tenancy Act.
• The tenants argued that Section 8 of the Abolition Act protected their tenancy rights, and they were entitled to purchase the land under the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the following key questions:

• Whether the tenancy rights of the respondents were valid and subsisting on the date the Abolition Act came into force, i.e., 01.01.1963.
• Whether the subject Watan lands were exempted from the provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and whether Sections 29 and 31 of the Tenancy Act were applicable to the subject lands.
• Whether the tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase of the tenanted agricultural Watan lands under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act in terms of Section 8 of the Abolition Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 5 of the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874: Restrictions on alienation of Watan land.
• Section 88 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Exemption to Government lands and certain other lands.
• Section 88CA of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Exemption of certain service lands from Sections 32 to 32-R.
• Sections 29 and 31 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Procedure for taking possession and termination of tenancy.
• Section 3 of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962: Abolition of Patel Watans.
• Section 5 of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962: Regrant of Watan land.
• Section 8 of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962: Application of existing tenancy law.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bombay High Court’s decision. The Court held that the tenancy was subsisting on 01.01.1963, as the order dated 18.04.1961 was under challenge, and the dispossession of the tenants was not final. The Court also held that the subject Watan lands were not government lands and were not exempted from the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The Court further held that the tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase of the tenanted agricultural Watan lands under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, in terms of Section 8 of the Abolition Act, after the exemption under Section 88CA ceased to exist.

Treatment of Submissions and Authorities by the Court

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Dattatraya Keshav Deshpande vs. Tukaram Raghu Chorage [AIR 1921 Bom 173]*: The Court noted this case in the context of protection of Watan property but clarified that the 1874 Act cannot be treated as an independent code and has to be understood in light of the later developments in the context of the Tenancy Act and the Abolition Act.
• Govind Ramchandra Patil vs. Bapusaheb Krishnarao Patil and others [Special Civil Application No.1741 of 1961, decided on 13.12.1962]*: The Court followed this case, which held that tenants should continue on the land unless the landlord requires it for personal cultivation or the tenant is guilty of defaults under Section 14 of the Tenancy Act.
• Kallawwa Shattu Patil and others vs. Yallappa Parashram Patil and another [(1992) 1Mah.LJ 34]*: The Court followed this case, which held that tenancy rights subsist even after regrant and the proviso to Section 8 of the Abolition Act is for a limited purpose.
• Pradeeprao @ Virgonda Shivgonda Patil vs. Sidappa Girappa Hemgire since deceased through his heirs and LRs. Ginnappa Sidappa Hemgire and others [(2004) 3 Mah. L.J. 75]*: The Court followed this case, which held that regrant of Watan land does not create a new lease, and the tenant acquires the right to purchase the land.
• Kondabai Ganu Barkale (since deceased) through her Legal Heirs Smt. Housabai P Bhongale and others vs. Pandit @ Shankar D. Patil (since deceased) through his Legal Heirs Waman S.Patil and others [(2016) 2 Mah. LJ 282]*: The Court followed this case, which held that tenancy created before Tillers’ Day continues, and the provisions of the Tenancy Act apply after the Abolition Act and regrant.
• Sadashiv Dada Patil vs. Purushottam Onkar Patil (Dead) by LRs. [(2006) 11 SCC 161]*: The Court followed this case, which held that the proviso to Section 8 of the Abolition Act merely fixes the date of the lease for reckoning the purchase price and does not divest the tenant of the vested right of purchase under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to harmonize the three legislations and protect the rights of agricultural tenants. The Court emphasized that the Tenancy Act was a beneficial legislation intended to alleviate the plight of agricultural tenants. The Court also noted that the order dated 18.04.1961, which favored the Watandar’s heirs, had not attained finality, as it was under challenge. The Court also considered the fact that the subject Watan lands were not government lands and were not exempted from the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The Court further noted that Section 8 of the Abolition Act protected the tenancy rights of individuals who were cultivating Watan land as tenants on the appointed date and that the tenants were entitled to purchase the land under the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Tenancy rights are protected under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, even on Watan lands.
• The death of a Watandar does not automatically terminate the tenancy of agricultural land.
• The Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962, protects the rights of tenants cultivating Watan land.
• Tenants of Watan land are entitled to purchase the land after its regrant to the Watandar.
• Orders for possession that are underchallenge do not attain finality and do not extinguish the tenancy rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Baban Balaji More vs. Babaji Hari Shelar is a significant ruling that reinforces the protection of tenant rights in agricultural land, particularly in the context of the abolition of hereditary land systems. The Court’s emphasis on the harmonious interpretation of the three legislations involved ensures that the rights of tenants are not undermined by the complexities of historical land ownership patterns. This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for similar cases involving the interplay of land, tenancy, and abolition laws in India.