Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench dated 13.01.2005 in Writ Petition No.1389 of 1989. The dispute concerned agricultural land admeasuring 29 acres and 4 gunthas situated at Dhondalgaon, Aurangabad District, Maharashtra. Kisan Punde, predecessor in title of the respondents, was the original owner. The land was mortgaged to Vasudeorao in 1941 for Rs.200 and further mortgaged to Chandu Narsingh Pardeshi, father of the appellants, in 1942. Possession was given to Vasudeorao who gave it to the appellants' father. The appellants were mortgagees in possession since 1942. Chandu, father of appellants, alienated 5 acres to respondents Bakru and Sheelabai. Aggrieved, sons of Kisan (Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru, Madan) filed a petition before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad for termination of mortgage and restoration of possession under Section 10 of the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, 1939 read with Section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The application was allowed ex-parte on 27.07.1984. The Additional Commissioner remanded the case on 12.03.1986. The Additional Collector, after hearing, allowed the application on 14.05.1988. The appellants' revision was dismissed on 30.03.1989. The appellants filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court on 13.01.2005, holding that Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 excludes a mortgagee in possession from being a deemed tenant. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. During hearing, all parties negotiated and amicably settled the matter. Various intervention applications were allowed. The parties filed affidavits and a Memo of Compromise. The compromise divided the suit land of 25 acres (originally 29 acres 4 gunthe) among the families: Digamber Chandu Shingrule family (8 acres 5 R), Vimalabai Babasaheb Kale family (5 acres 1 R), Barku Raghunath Raut family (7 acres 33 R), Shriram Kashinath Wakle family (4 acres 2 R), and Bhaskar Eknanath Pansare (1 acre). The respondents agreed to take 15 acres from these holdings. The compromise also included a detailed chart of allotment to the original owners (branches A, B, C) and intervenors/purchasers. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise, directing that the compromise terms and sketch map form part of the judgment and decree. The Registry was directed to draft a decree accordingly. Parties were directed to cooperate in mutation and were at liberty to file the decree for registration.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Land Dispute - Compromise Decree - The appeal arose from a dispute over agricultural land involving mortgagees, original owners, and purchasers - The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of a Memo of Compromise, dividing the land among the parties as per agreed allotment - Held that the compromise terms and sketch map shall form part of the judgment and decree (Paras 8-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the predecessors in title of the appellants could take advantage of Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 to claim deemed tenant status, and whether the proceedings initiated by the sons of Kisan for termination of mortgage and restoration of possession were maintainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the Memo of Compromise. The terms of Compromise (Annexure-A3) and the maps/sketches (Annexure-A5) showing division of properties shall form part of the judgment. The Registry is directed to draft a decree accordingly. Parties are directed to cooperate in mutation and are at liberty to file the decree for registration.
Law Points
- Compromise decree
- Settlement of land dispute
- Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1950
- Section 5
- Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act
- 1939
- Section 10
