The Bombay High Court has clarified that a tenant’s failure to personally cultivate agricultural land does not automatically amount to a breach of Section 32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Court emphasized that unless there is clear evidence of abandonment or unlawful transfer of land possession, such non-cultivation alone cannot justify resumption or eviction.
The decision was delivered by Justice Amit Borkar while hearing Vitthal Thaku Jagdale v. Nitin Suresh Kadam (Writ Petition No. 8428 of 2019). The case raised a key question on whether the mere absence of personal cultivation by a tenant-purchaser qualifies as a breach warranting land resumption under Section 32R of the Act.
“If a tenant-purchaser does not cultivate the land personally and has no valid legal reason, then it amounts to a breach of Section 32R of the Tenancy Act. However, whether such breach should lead to eviction or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case,” the bench observed.
The Court highlighted that Section 32R should not be applied in a mechanical way. The purpose of the law is to ensure land remains in the hands of cultivators, but it must also respect the rights and realities faced by tenants. It noted that even if personal cultivation has not taken place, the Collector has the authority to condone the lapse if “sufficient reason” is shown.
In this case, the petitioner’s father was declared the deemed purchaser of the land by the Agricultural Land Tribunal. However, it came to light only in 2008 that his name was missing from the revenue records. The father had reportedly left the land fallow, which prompted authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 32P and later order resumption of land.
The petitioners argued that just because the land was left uncultivated for some time does not prove that the tenant abandoned possession or transferred it to a third party. They emphasized that the Act requires more than mere non-cultivation to justify such severe action.
“Mere proof of non-cultivation is not sufficient. The authorities must look at the full background and ask whether the tenant has completely abandoned the land or misused the legal benefits given to him,” stated the bench.
Justice Borkar observed that a tenant’s conduct must be considered in totality, including factors like age, health, financial situation, and other legitimate difficulties. Only when there is deliberate and complete withdrawal from cultivation should the harsh penalty of eviction be considered.
The Court also rejected the respondent’s argument that any instance of non-cultivation should directly lead to eviction.
“If such a strict view is adopted, then even if the land is kept fallow for one season due to genuine reasons like illness or poor rainfall, the tenant would face eviction unless the Collector condones the lapse,” the Court noted.
The bench ultimately concluded that the eviction order passed against the petitioners was based on a misinterpretation of Sections 32P and 32R and was therefore unlawful. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Orders Takedown of Six Defamatory Videos Against Minister Girish Mahajan
This decision reinforces that tenancy laws must be interpreted not just technically, but also fairly, considering the realities faced by farmers and tenants in cultivating agricultural land.
Case Title: Vitthal Thaku Jagdale v. Nitin Suresh Kadam
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.8428 OF 2019
Counsel for Petitioner: Prasad Dhakephalkar
Counsel for Respondent: Abhishek Kulkarni with Mr. Sagar Wakale
