2005(4) ALL MR 329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(AURANGABAD BENCH)

A.B. NAIK, J.

Nathu Lotu Buwa (Deceased Through L.Rs.)Vs.Smt. Sakhubai W/O Ganpat Mahar

Writ Petition No.2265 of 1989

27th April, 2005

Petitioner Counsel: Shri. P. R. KATNESHWARKAR
Respondent Counsel: Shri. C. V. KORHALKAR,S/Shri. S. P. & P. R. DESHMUKH

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (1948), Ss.32-G, 32-K - Purchase of land - Non-payment of purchase price - Effect of - Unpaid purchase price has to be recovered as arrears of land revenue - As such, mere inaction on the part of the tenant in payment of price, does not automatically render the purchase price ineffective.

The Tribunal has to take recourse to the process of recovery of balance price as envisaged u/s.176 of the Code, by serving written notice on the tenant and calling him to pay the amount and if the tenant fails to deposit the amount then further steps as envisaged u/s.176 of the Code was required to be followed. Admittedly, this procedure is not followed. Shri. Korhalkar, advocate for respondent, taking clue from the latter part of sub-section (2) of Section 32-M contended that the Tribunal has failed to recover the amount from the tenant, and as such, the purchase has become ineffective. It is not possible to accept the contention of Shri. Korhalkar considering the mandate of the statute as Section 32-M(2) uses the phrase "until the Tribunal fails to recover the purchase price" and therefore the indication of the statute is that the Tribunal has to act and take effective steps to recover the purchase price by adopting procedure and till then the purchase does not become ineffective. It is only after all attempts are made for recovery then only the purchase became ineffective by virtue of Section 32-K(3) read with Section 32-M(2) otherwise not; Nothing is brought on record by the landlady that the Tribunal has, in fact, taken recourse to recover the unpaid price as arrears of land revenue as contemplated u/s.32-K(1) of the Act. In the absence of any such material on record, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the Tribunal has failed to recover the amount. Therefore, though the tenant has failed to make the application as referred to u/s.32-K; but it was the duty of the Tribunal to initiate proceedings to recover the price and unless and until the attempts are made and failed to recover the amount then only by operation of sub-section (2) of Section 32-M the purchase becomes inoperative. Therefore, the judgment of the MRT is clearly unsustainable in law and cannot be countenanced as the MRT proceeded on altogether wrong assumption and by assuming jurisdiction which is not vested in it had allowed the Revision Application of landlady. On conjointly reading Section 32-K(3) and 32-M(2), it has to be accepted that there is no failure on the part of the Tribunal to recover the unpaid price. Merely because the tenant has not made any application for extension of time to pay unpaid purchase price, that by itself cannot be considered as failure to recover the purchase price. AIR 1971 SC 1992, 2000(4) ALL MR 120 - Referred to. [Para 13,15]

Cases Cited:
Sriram Mendi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 1992 [Para 16]
Radhabai Deshpande Vs. Babu Shewale, 2000(4) ALL MR 120=2001(1) Mh.L.J. 629 [Para 18]


JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Nathu Lotu Buwa has challenged the judgment and order dated 29th April, 1989 passed by the learned member Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (in short "the MRT"), who allowed the Revision filed by the respondent, and set aside the order dated 29-07-1988 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amalner (in short "SDO"). (The petitioner and the respondent hereinafter will be referred to as "tenant" and "landlady" respectively).

2. To understand the controversy raised in this petition, it will be appropriate to refer to the facts emerging from the record. Before narrating facts in detail, it is to be noted that the original petitioner died during the pendency of this Writ Petition and his heirs and legal representatives are brought on record, vide an order dated 19-01-2004 and now, the petition is being prosecuted by the heirs.

3. It is not in dispute that the deceased-petitioner was a tenant of land Block No.351 admeasuring 2 H, 52 R situated at Chopada (proper) Dist. Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as the "land"), Ganpat Mahar was the owner and after his death, his widow Sakhubai, succeeded to the estate of deceased Ganpat. It is also not disputed that Nathu Lotu Buwa was a tenant in possession of the land, on 01-04-1957 and, accordingly, he became "deemed purchaser" of it. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated to fix the purchase price accordingly, the purchase price was fixed u/s.32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Agricultural Lands Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") fixed the price of the land in the year 1963 determining the price of the land at Rs.3,090/- and it was to be paid in 12 equal installments by the tenant. On fixation of price, necessary entry was taken in the revenue record. Mutation Entry No.20787, evidencing this fact that the tenant has purchased the land. It is not disputed that the tenant has not paid the full purchase price as ordered, but paid part of it i.e. Rs.2655.75. Thereafter, the tenant did not deposit the installments. As the tenant did not pay the remaining amount of purchase price as per the installments, widow of Ganpat, i.e. landlady approached the Tahsildar, Chopada, by initiating proceedings for declaration that as the purchase price has not been paid in full, therefore, the purchase became ineffective. The application was filed on 7th April, 1987. On filing of the application, the Tahsildar, issued notice to the parties and directed them to appear before him on 10th June, 1987. The tenant to whom the notice was issued, refused to accept the notice. Pursuant to the notice the landlady appeared and filed her written statement, the tenant did not appear. The landlady who has stated before the Tahsildar that the tenant has paid only five installments of purchase price, but the balance price, according to her, was not paid. The last installment was paid in the year 1984 and, thereafter, no amount whatsoever was paid. It is contended by her that she has no other source of income to earn livelihood; hence she needed the land for her cultivation and, as such, she issued a notice to the tenant on 25th March, 1987 calling upon the tenant to deliver the vacant possession of the land on the ground that the tenant has committed default in payment of purchase price. As there was no response from the tenant, the Tahsildar proceeded to consider the application filed by the landlady and noticing the provisions of Section 32-K of the Act, he came to the conclusion that the tenant has committed default from the year 1984 onwards, therefore, the purchase has become ineffective. The Tahsildar for some erroneous assumption, proceeded to consider the provisions of the Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribe Act, 1975 and it was found that landlady was a Scheduled Caste and, the Tahsildar on considering the provisions of this Act held that she has right to receive the possession of the land. Accordingly, the Tahsildar Chopada by the order dated 30th June, 1987 allowed the application and declared that as the price is not paid in full, in time and, therefore, the purchase has become ineffective and hence he directed that proceedings u/s.32-P of the Act be taken.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th June, 1987 passed by the Tahsildar, Chopada, the tenant preferred an appeal to the SDO under section 74 of the Act. The SDO considered the provisions of sub-section (2), (3) of Sec.32-K of the Act and came to the conclusion that the sale has not become ineffective and, therefore, he interfered with the order passed by the Tahsildar and set aside the order by directing the tenant to deposit the balance of five installments with interest, and directed that the price be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th July, 1988 passed by the SDO Amalner, the landlady preferred Revision before the MRT being Tenancy Revision No.171/1988. The learned Member of the MRT on 29th April, 1989 allowed the Revision Application by setting aside the order passed by the SDO and restored the order passed by the Tahsildar and, accordingly, the Revision came to be allowed.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29-04-1989 passed by the learned Member of the MRT, the petitioner approached this Court by this petition.

7. Heard Shri. Katneshwarkar, learned Adv. for the petitioner/s and Shri. C. V. Kohalkar, Adv. with S/Shri. S. P. & P. R. Deshmukh, Advocates, for the respondent.

8. Shri. Katneshwarkar, learned Adv. for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in interfering with the order passed by the SDO, that too on wholly erroneous and untenable grounds. He submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Member of the MRT are perverse. He submitted that the MRT has on extraneous consideration wrongly considered the provision of Section 32-K of the Act and interfered with the order passed by the SDO. He submitted that the statutory purchase cannot be declared ineffective unless and until all the statutory requirements are complied with. He submitted that the purchase will be ineffective only when the Tribunal fails to recover the entire amount of price so fixed u/s.32-G of the Act, by following the procedure contemplated under the Act. He submitted that there is no record to show that the Tribunal has taken any steps to recover the unpaid purchase price by following the provisions contemplated under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (in short "the Code"). He submitted it is even not the case of landlady that the Tribunal has taken steps/measures to recover the unpaid purchase price and the Tribunal has failed to recover the same. Only contention is raised that purchase price is not paid, or deposited by the tenant, as such, the purchase cannot be declared as ineffective. He, therefore, submitted that unless and until the Tribunal makes an attempt to recover the amount of price so fixed and after taking all steps for recovery of the amount if the amount is not recovered, then only the provision of Section 32-M(2) are applicable and then only purchase becomes ineffective. He submitted that without considering all the aspects in its proper perspective, the Tribunal proceeded on wrong assumption and, most probably, the Tribunal was influenced by the fact that the landlady belonged to Scheduled Caste. He further submitted that there is no material on record to show that any attempt was made by the Tribunal to recover the amount of purchase price from the tenant. He submitted that the declaration made by the Tribunal regarding the purchase by the tenant requires to be interfered with. He submitted that the SDO was fully justified in directing the balance price (installments) be recovered from the tenant as arrears of land revenue, which is in consonance with Section 32-M(2) and hence the order of SDO is required to be restored.

9. Per contra, Shri. C. V. Korhalkar, learned Adv. for respondent submitted that after 01-04-1957 the tenant occupying the land becomes a tenant purchaser and unless and until the entire price is paid or recovered he cannot be considered to be the title holder of the land. He submitted, it is an obligation and duty cast upon by the Act upon the tenant to abide by the statute and pay the price, as per the installment fixed by the Tribunal u/s.32-G of the Act. He submitted that it is not disputed that after 1984 the price was neither paid nor attempt was made by the tenant to approach the A. L. Tribunal seeking extension to pay the price as contemplated under section 32-K of the Act. He submitted that the statute which extends the benefit to the tenant to become owner of the land, has also made a provision to the effect that in case a tenant-purchaser, fails to pay the installments of purchase price such tenant has to approach the Tribunal, by filing an application for extension of time to pay the purchase price and to make out a case for extension, if the tenant has not availed that opportunity or adopted that procedure. It will have to presume that the tenant is not willing to pay the purchase price and not willing to purchase the land, therefore, the purchase has to be declared as ineffective. He submitted that as the price was not recovered by the Tribunal as contemplated under the Act, it will have to presume that there is failure to recover the price as contemplated u/s.32-M(2) of the Act and, therefore, he submitted that the purchase is deemed to have been ineffective from the date on which the tenant has failed to pay the price. He submitted that if the authority i.e. Tribunal did not take any steps to recover the price as per the provisions of the Act/Rules, for their inaction the landlady cannot be penalized. He submitted that the price which was fixed was to be paid by the tenant in 12 installments and admittedly only price in seven installments were paid and, therefore, the tenant has failed to pay the installments as contemplated under the Act and, therefore, as the payment is not made in time as per the installment, the purchase will have to be declared as ineffective. He took me through various provisions of the Act to substantiate his contentions to which I will refer at later stage. The learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that as the tenant-purchaser has not paid the purchase price as per the installment and even he has not made any application as required, the logical conclusion that must be drawn is that there is failure on the part of the Tribunal to recover the amount of purchase price as referred to under sub-sec. (3) of Section 32-K of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that considering the fact that the landlady has filed an application before the Tahsildar complaining non-payment of price as determined, which is indicative of the fact that there is failure on the part of the tenant to deposit the price and, therefore, he submitted that by operation of law i.e. Section 32-M(2) the purchase has become ineffective and the order passed by the Tribunal requires to be maintained. Shri. Korhalkar, fairly submitted that unwanted observations are made by the MRT this Court may not consider those observations for deciding the point at issue. The only point at issue, according to the learned counsel is, "whether the purchase has become ineffective on failure of the tenant to pay the balance of installments of price". He submitted that it is a pure question of law which can be considered by this Court, by interpreting the provisions of the Act. In fact, no disputed question of facts are involved in this petition. The result of the petition will depend upon the true and correct interpretation of Section 32-K read with Section 32-M of the Act and if this Court comes to the conclusion that the tenant has failed to pay the amount then only the question will arise whether the purchase becoming ineffective.

10. Shri. Korhalkar, ld. Adv. submitted that while the price was fixed, the Tribunal has directed the tenant to pay the purchase price in 12 installments. The tenant-purchaser has deposited part of the amount in 1984 and thereafter no amount was deposited, as required. He submitted that Section 32(K)(i) requires the tenant to apply to the Tribunal for extension of time and, then, the Tribunal on being satisfied that it was beyond control of the tenant to pay the amount, the Tribunal, may extends the period not exceeding one year. He submitted admittedly no such application was filed. Therefore, the act of the tenant-purchaser itself indicates that there is no honest attempt on the part of the tenant-purchaser to deposit the amount. He submitted that as the installments were not paid, so also no application was made for extension of time, he submitted that the purchase has become ineffective in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 32-M of the Act.

11. Shri. Katneshwarkar, ld. Adv. for the petitioner submitted that after the judgment of the SDO, the entire purchase price amounting to Rs.950/- has been credited and deposited with the Tahsildar, Chopada on 24th Oct., 1988. In fact, the amount was actually paid in the State Bank of India, Chopada Branch. Shri. Katneshwarkar produced the challan by which the amount was deposited with the State Bank of India on 25th Oct., 1988 and, therefore, he submitted that as the price is now deposited, the judgment and order passed by the MRT has to be set aside.

12. As noted above, the only point which is involved in this petition is, whether for non-payment of purchase price, the purchase has become ineffective? In order to answer the above contentions, some of the statutory provisions are required to be considered. There is no dispute about the fact that deceased Nathu was a permanent tenant on the land on the tiller's day i.e. 1st April, 1957 as the tenant was in possession of the land. The tenant deemed to have purchased the land from his landlord. It is not disputed that after the tenant became deemed purchaser, no proceedings were taken by the landlord as contemplated under the Act. By reading Section 32 sub-sec. (1) of the Act, it is clear that on 01-04-1957 every tenant subject to the provision of the Act, is deemed to have been purchased the land cultivated by him from his landlord, free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon. It is also not disputed that the proceedings u/s.32-G were taken by the Tribunal and price was fixed. It is not disputed that at any point of time, the landlord raised any dispute about tenant becoming deemed purchaser. Section 32-G of the Act requires the Tribunal to issue notice to all the tenant/s who u/s.32 are deemed to have purchased the land and determine the price of the land to be paid by the tenant, by resorting to the provisions of Section 32-H. Accordingly, the price of the land was fixed in the year 1963 only. Section 32-K is required to be considered in detail to understand the controversy raised in the Petition and submissions advanced before me. Section 32-K of the Act reads thus:

"32-K: Mode of payment of price by tenant purchased and the power of Tribunal to recover purchase price: (1) On the determination of the purchase price payable under section 32-H the tenant purchaser :-

(i) If he is a permanent tenant, shall deposit with the Tribunal the entire amount of the purchase price within one year from such date as may be fixed by the Tribunal;

Provided that, if the Tribunal is satisfied that such tenant purchaser has failed to make the payment within the time specified for any reason beyond his control the Tribunal may extend the period not exceeding one year;

(ii) If he is not a permanent tenant, shall deposit with the Tribunal the entire amount of price:

(a) either in lump sum within one year from such date, or

(b) in such annual installments not exceeding twelve with simple interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum on or before such dates as may be fixed by the Tribunal; and

the Tribunal shall direct that the amount deposited in lump sum or the amount of installment deposited shall be paid to the former landlord.

(1A) If a tenant purchaser is unable to deposit with the Tribunal the entire amount of the purchase price in lump sum before the expiry of the period fixed under clause (ii) of sub-section (1), he may deposit with the Tribunal within three months after expiry of such period of six months from the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964. (Mah. XXXI of 1965) whichever is later an amount equal to one-twelth of the purchase price and also an amount equal to one years interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum on the balance and apply to the Tribunal to pay the balance in installments. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall grant the tenant-purchaser such reasonable facility (not exceeding eleven annual installments) for payment of the balance as it deems fit.

(1B) Where the tenant purchaser:

(a) fails to pay the price in lump sum within the period referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (1), or

(b) is in arrears of four installments, where the number of installments fixed is four or more and all the installments in any other case, he may during the period of six months from the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Mah. XXXI of 1965) or from the date of default of the payment of price in lump sum, or of the last installment, whichever is later, apply to the Tribunal to condone the default on the ground that he, for sufficient reasons, was incapable of paying the price in lump sum or the installments within time; and if the Tribunal after holding such enquiry as it thinks fit, is satisfied with the reasons given, it may allow further time:

(i) of one year to the tenant-purchaser to pay the price in lump sum; or

(ii) for payment of the arrears, and may, for that purpose increase the total number of installments to sixteen.

(2) During any period for which payment of rent is suspended or remitted under section 13, the tenant purchaser shall not be bound to pay the purchase price in lump sum or the amount of any installment fixed under his section or any interest thereon, if any.

(3) If a tenant purchaser fails to pay the entire amount of the purchase price within the period fixed under the provisions of this Section or is in arrears of four installments where the number of installments fixed is four or more, and all the installments in any other case, the amount of the purchase price remaining unpaid and the amount of interest thereon at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum, if any, shall be recoverable by the Tribunal as an area of land revenue."

13. From reading the above provision, the following aspects emerge: (i) mode of payment of the purchase price; (ii) if the tenant is a permanent tenant he shall deposit with the Tribunal the amount of purchase price within one year from the date fixed by the Tribunal; (iii) in genuine case of incapacity to pay, the/Tribunal has been empowered to extend the period; (iv) in case of payment of price by installment, if the installment not paid then that unpaid price has to be recovered with 4 1/2% interest and that amount has to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Therefore one aspect is clear that unpaid purchase price has to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. As such, mere inaction on the part of the tenant in payment of price, does not automatically render the purchase price ineffective.

Dated: 27th April, 2005

14. To recapitulate some facts: the landlady admittedly submitted an application on 7th April, 1987 complaining that the tenant-purchaser has not paid or deposited the amount of installments. It is accepted by all the three authorities below that the purchase price in part was paid upto 1984 and thereafter there was default or failure on the part of the tenant to remit the price. It is to be noted that the provisions of the Tenancy Act are made for the benefit of the tillers of the soil and merely because the tenant fails to pay the amount that, by itself, automatically does not attract invalidation of the right which is created in favour of the tenant u/s.32 of the Act. It is to be noted that the statutes also cast upon an obligation on the authorities who are empowered to see that the agrarian reforms are implemented in proper perspective. Section 32-M(2) was brought on the statute book by Act No.XXXI/1965 which says that where the purchase of any land has become ineffective for default of payment in time of the price in lump sum or in installments, but the tenant-purchaser has nevertheless continued in possession at the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964; then the purchase of the land shall not be deemed to be effective until the Tribunal fails to recover the amount of the purchase price in sub-section (3) of Section 32-K. It is an admitted position that the tenant is in possession of the land uptill now. Sub-section (2) of Section 32-M has to be considered on the backdrop of Section 32-K(3) and the fact that the tenant is in possession of the land when the Act 1964 came into force. Section 32-K(3) provides that if a tenant purchaser fails to pay the entire amount of the purchase price within the period fixed under the provisions of this section or in arrears for installments where the number of installments fixed is four or more and all the installments in any other case if the amount of purchase price remaining unpaid and the amount of interest thereon at the rate of four and a half per cent per annum, if any shall be recovered by the Tribunal as an arrears of land revenue. (underlined by me)

15. Reading these provisions conjointly, it is clear that it is not only the tenant who has to make an application but the statute has made a provision by authorizing the Tribunal to recover the unpaid price as arrears of land revenue. In the present case, admittedly after 1984 the tenant has not deposited the amount; within three years the landlady submitted an application to the Tahsildar, Chopada making a grievance that the tenant has not paid the amount. In my judgment, if such application was filed and if the Tahsildar on noticing that the amount was not paid, then in that eventuality, it was the duty of the Tribunal i.e. Tahsildar to initiate the proceeding to recover the unpaid price by resorting to the provision of the Code for recovery of that sum as arrears of land revenue. Section 176 of the Code deals with the process of recovery of arrears. As such, the Tribunal has to take recourse to the process of recovery of balance price as envisaged u/s.176 of the Code, by serving written notice on the tenant and calling him to pay the amount and if the tenant fails to deposit the amount then further steps as envisaged u/s.176 of the Code was required to be followed. Admittedly, this procedure is not followed. Shri. Korhalkar taking clue from the latter part of sub-section (2) of Section 32-M contended that the Tribunal has failed to recover the amount from the tenant, and as such, the purchase has become ineffective. It is not possible for me to accept the contention of Shri. Korhalkar considering the mandate of the statute as Section 32-M(2) uses the phrase "until the Tribunal fails to recover the purchase price" and therefore the indication of the statute is that the Tribunal has to act and take effective steps to act and take effective steps to recover the purchase price by adopting procedure and till then the purchase does not become ineffective. It is only after all attempts are made for recovery then only the purchase became ineffective by virtue of Section 32-K(3) read with Section 32-M(2) otherwise not; Nothing is brought on record by the landlady that the Tribunal has, in fact, taken recourse to recover the unpaid price as arrears of land revenue as contemplated u/s.32-K(1) of the Act. In the absence of any such material on record, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the Tribunal has failed to recover the amount. In my judgment, therefore, though the tenant has failed to make the application as referred to u/s.32-K; but it was the duty of the Tribunal to initiate proceedings to recover the price and unless and until the attempts are made and failed to recover the amount then only by operation of sub-section (2) of Section 32-M the purchase becomes inoperative. Therefore, in my view, the judgment of the MRT is clearly unsustainable in law and cannot be countenanced as the MRT proceeded on altogether wrong assumption and by assuming jurisdiction which is not vested in it had allowed the Revision Application of landlady. On conjointly reading Section 32-K(3) and 32-M(2), it has to be accepted that there is no failure on the part of the Tribunal to recover the unpaid price. Merely because the tenant has not made any application for extension of time to pay unpaid purchase price, that by itself cannot be considered as failure to recover the purchase price.

16. An useful reference can be made to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Sriram Mendi Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1971 SC 1992 where the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the scope and ambit of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Amendment Act XXXI/1965 by which the Section 32-K and 32-M came to be amended. The validity of the amendments were subject-matter of challenge. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered the validity of amendment. The contention which was recorded before the Apex Court was noted in para no.8 of the judgment, the apex Court replied the contention in para 11. The relevant portion for purpose of the controversy in the case at hand, can be noted:

"11 This decision concludes the most important question whether the petitioner's fundamental rights are infringed under Arts.14, 19 and 31 as the parent Act as well as the amending Act as now protected by Art.31-A of the Constitution. Neither the question of discrimination nor the compensation or its adequacy can be gone into nor can the unreasonableness of the provisions under which the landlords title has been extinguished nor the manner in which the price is to be paid can be challenged. Once it has been held that Article 31-A applies the petitioner cannot complain that his rights under articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution have been infringed. This protection is available not only to Acts which come within its terms but also to Acts amending such Acts to include new items of property or which change some detail of the scheme of the Act provided firstly that the change is not such as would take it out of Article 31-A or by itself is not such as would not be protected by it and secondly that the assent of the President has been given to the amending statute. To put it differently as long as the amendment also relates to a scheme of agrarian reforms providing for the acquisition of any estate or any right thereunder or for extinguishment or modification of such right the mere transfer of the tenure from one person to another or the payment of the price in installment or even the postponement of payment by a further period cannot be challenged under Arts.14, 19 and 31. In this case we have noticed that the impugned legislation has merely amended that provision which related to the recovery of the amounts from the tenant who has become purchaser and the postponement of the time of ineffectiveness of sale till the tribunal has tried and failed to recover the amount from the tenant purchaser. The only way under which the petitioner could have recovered the amounts under the Amendment Act was by an application to the Collector under the Revenue Recovery Act for collecting it as arrears of land revenue but that provision under section 32-L has now been deleted. While vesting of the title of the tenure in the erstwhile tenant is still defeasible only on certain specified contingencies as was before the impugned Act; it only modified the previous provisions to the extent that the erstwhile tenant has been given the benefit of having the payment postponed or installments increased by requiring the tribunal to make an enquiry as to whether there were sufficient reasons for the tenant purchaser making a default and if it is satisfied to condone the delay and extend the period of payment. It also vested in the tribunal instead of the Collector the power to make the recovery on behalf of the landholder. It may also be noticed that under the impugned Act the sale still becomes ineffective as was under the amendment Act when the amount is not recovered with this difference that under the former it has to be shown that the tenant purchaser was not in a position to pay. No doubt, before the impugned Act, the tenant-purchaser did not pay, the Collector could take action under the revenue recovery Act to recover the amount and if he did not recover it the sale became ineffective and the landlord could be put in possession by evicting the tenant purchaser provided he was entitled to get possession of it under the Act, as when his holdings do not come within the ceiling. The basic position still remains the same after the impugned Act and there is nothing in the Amendment Act which is destructive of the scheme of agrarian reform which the legislation seeks to implement and which is protected under Art.21-A of the Constitution.

12. This view of ours is amply borne out also by the Statement of Objects and Reasons which impelled the legislature to state the difficulty that was being felt in the implementation of the agrarian land reforms and indicate how it sought to find a remedy and get over it. This is what was stated :

"According to provisions of Sections 32-K, 32-L and 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948; it is left to the tenant to deposit with the tribunal the purchases of the land which is deemed to have been purchased by him under section 32 of that Act. If he fails to deposit the price in lump sum or installments the purchase becomes price ineffective and under section 32-P the tenant can be summarily evicted from the land. It has been brought to the notice of the government that in the case an Act a large number of tenants specially belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, the purchase is in danger of being ineffective for failure to deposit the sale price on due dates. It is noticed that these tenants being illiterate and socially backward have failed to deposit the amount more of ignorance than wilful default. Unless therefore immediate steps are taken to provide for recovery of purchase price through government agency a large number of tenants are likely to be evicted from their lands due to purchase becoming ineffective. This will result in defeating the object of the tenancy legislation. To avoid this result, it is therefore, considered that the Agricultural Lands tribunal should be empowered to recover the purchase price from tenants as arrears of land revenue and until the tribunal has failed to recover the purchase price the purchase should not become ineffective. It is also considered that the benefit of these provisions should be given to tenants whose purchase has already become ineffective but who have not yet been evicted from their lands under Section 32-P. This bill is intended to achieve these objects." (Emphasis by me)

17. Considering the observations of the Apex Court (supra) and applying that principle to the case at hand and more particularly the Tribunal has not taken any steps to recover the unpaid purchase price as contemplated, in my judgment, the judgment of the MRT is required to be interfered with.

18. Shri. Korhalkar, ld. Adv. lastly made a feeble attempt by submitting that the action for recovery of price should have been taken within reasonable time by the Tribunal. Shri. Korhalkar fairly submitted that there is no specific time by which the Tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction for recovery of the amount as contemplated u/s.32-M(2). He brought to my notice the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 629 : [2000(4) ALL MR 120], Radhabai Deshpande Vs. Babu Shewale. He placed strong reliance on the observation of the learned single Judge in para no.15 of the judgment. Having gone through the observations made by the learned single Judge in para no.15 of the said judgment, in my judgment, the observations made by this Court in Radhabai's case cannot be made applicable in the present case as on the facts which are borne by the record disclosed that the landlady in 1987 filed an application complaining that after 1984 the installment of purchase price was not paid, as I have concluded that it was a duty of the Tribunal to initiate proceedings for recovery of price in the present case the complaint was made by landlady that purchase price is not paid after 1984. As such, at least, at this stage, the Tribunal came to know that the tenant has not paid the purchase price. Therefore, at that stage, the Tribunal should have invoked its jurisdiction and started proceedings of recovery of the amount which the Tribunal has failed to do it. As the Tribunal failed to initiate the proceedings to recover the purchase price by adopting the proceeding as provided by the Act, therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has failed to recover the purchase price. When a statute requires certain things to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone, unless the provision of statute indicates contrary intention. In the present case, undisputedly, unpaid purchase after 1984 was not paid, the tenant has not made an application u/s.32-K, the tribunal also did not take any steps to recover the purchase price. The application that is filed by the landlady in 1986-87 in my judgment, the contention of Shri. Korhalkar that the proceeding should have been taken within reasonable time cannot be accepted. As by now, the tenant has paid the entire purchase price after the judgment of the SDO Amalner. In view of this fact also, in my judgment, the judgment of the MRT is required to be set aside and, accordingly, it is set aside. The order passed by the SDO Amalner is No.TNC A-3/87 stands restored. The Tahsildar, Chopada is now directed to issue the certificate as required u/s.32-M of the Act. Rule made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause "C". However, there will be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.