Watan lands not covered by Sec 88(1)(a) of Maharashtra Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 could not be treated as Government lands: SC dismisses appeal of legal heirs of original Watandar
Justices C.T. Ravikumar & Sanjay Kumar [14-03-2024]

Read Order: Baban Balaji More (Dead) by LRs. & others v. Babaji Hari Shelar (Dead) by LRs. & others  [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8356 OF 2017]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, March 15, 2024: The Supreme Court has observed that the legal heirs of original Watandar could not have taken lawful possession of lands from tenants pursuant to the order passed under Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 as provisions of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were applicable to the subject land.

The appeal before the Top Court entailed correlation of three vintage legislations i.e. Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874; Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act. The 1874 Act was enacted to declare and amend the law relating to Watans, i.e., hereditary offices. Balaji Chimnaji More, the predecessor of the present appellants, held a Patel Watan and was assigned Watan property. The predecessors of the respondents were cultivating this Watan property as tenants since 1955-56 or thereabouts.

When More died, his legal heirs filed an application under Section 5 of the 1874 Act. The Assistant Collector held that the tenancy created by the father of the applicants could not extend beyond his lifetime and the applicants would, have the right to recover possession of the said lands after the death of their father. He, accordingly, allowed their application and ordered that possession of the lands falling to their share should be handed over to them under Sections 11 and 11A of the 1874 Act.

Aggrieved thereby, the tenants filed Watan Appeal under Section 77 but the same was dismissed. The tenants carried the matter to the Additional Commissioner but the appeal was rejected. During the pendency of this proceeding, the possession of the lands in question was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased Watandar.

The Abolition Act was promulgated and it came into effect from 01.01.1963 and all Patel Watans stood abolished. The appellants made an application under Section 5 of the Abolition Act for regrant of the Watan lands and the tenants filed a revision before the Government. Thereafter, the Collector directed delivery of possession of the lands to the tenants.

Aggrieved by this development and complaining that they were not given notice or a hearing prior to the Government’s decision, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner but the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of their representation, the appellants filed Special Civil Application before the Bombay High Court. Later on, revision was allowed and the lands were directed to be restored to the tenants. Thereafter, the Bombay High Court rejected the appellants’ Writ Petition No. It is this judgment that was subjected to challenge before the Top Court.

The issue before the Division Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar & Justice Sanjay Kumar was whether the Tenancy Act had application to the subject Watan lands. Referring to section 23 of the 1874 Act and Section 88CA of the Tenancy Act, the Bench opined, “It is, therefore, clear that only Watan lands assigned as remuneration for service under Section 23 of the 1874 Act were to be treated as Government lands and stood excluded from the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Admittedly, Balaji Chimnaji More was not an ‘officiator’ covered by Section 23 of the 1874 Act. This is also demonstrated by the fact that his legal heirs paid only six times the assessment for regrant of the Watan lands under Section 5 of the Abolition Act and not twelve times, as would be applicable to an officiator. Ergo, the subject Watan lands were not covered by Section 88(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act and could not be treated as Government lands.”

The Top Court also made it clear that as the very institution of Patel Watan stood abolished, the limited exemption extended to such Watan lands under Section 88CA of the Tenancy Act also ceased. “Therefore, after the advent of the Abolition Act, Patel Watan land which was lawfully leased, and the lease of which was subsisting as on 01.01.1963, stood covered by the Tenancy Act in its entirety and the tenant of such Watan land was entitled to all the benefits under the provisions thereof, including the right to purchase such land”, it noted while also adding that the 1874 Act, therefore, cannot be treated as an independent, self-contained and complete code in itself.

It was opined that the High Court erroneously referred to the ‘misconceived appeal’ filed by them as ‘revisional proceedings’ but notwithstanding the nomenclature, the inescapable fact remained that the challenge to the initial order was subsisting as on 22.04.1962, the date of delivery of possession, and such proceedings of challenge concluded in favour of the tenants when their revision was allowed, vide the order dated 03.05.1982.

“Merely because no stay was granted in such proceedings and, in consequence, the tenants stood divested of actual physical possession, it did not lend any finality to the order impugned in those proceedings and, therefore, the purported termination of the lease still hung in balance”, it said.

“….we find that both sides have been merrily entering into transactions with third parties to alienate/transfer the subject lands. However, our decision in this case relates back to a time when the subject lands were still agricultural in nature and use and it would have no impact on the present position and the consequences flowing therefrom”, the Bench opined.

The Bench held that it was not open to the appellants to proceed against the tenants under the provisions of Sections 5, 11 and 11A of the 1874 Act after the death of Balaji Chimnaji More, the original Watandar, in February/March, 1958 because provisions of the Tenancy Act were very much applicable to the subject lands. Therefore, the legal heirs of the original Watandar could not have taken lawful possession of these lands from the tenants pursuant to the order dated 18.04.1961 passed under Sections 5, 11 and 11A of the 1874 Act.

As per the Bench, the same was rightly held to be invalid in the revisionary order and that finding was correctly held to be justified by the Bombay High Court. The Bench also held that the tenancy was lawfully subsisting on 01.04.1957, i.e., Tillers’ Day, and the tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase of these tenanted agricultural Watan lands under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act in terms of Section 8 of the Abolition Act, after the exemption afforded by Section 88CA ceased to exist. That right became operational when these Watan lands were regranted to the heirs of the original Watandar.

Thus, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court, the Bench dismissed the appeal.