KALANKA DEVI SANSTIIAN versus MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR & ORS.

KALANKA DEVI SANSTIIAN versus MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR & ORS.

A Sansthan, being a juristic person, is not entitled to recover possession of agricultural land from a tenant for the purpose of 'personal cultivation' under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, since 'personal cultivation' contemplates actual labour or supervision by a natural person, not a legal entity. The statutory framework and constitutional rules (particularly Article 31A) preclude challenge to this exclusion.

Parties
Appellant: Kalanka Devi Sansthan; Respondents: Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur & Ors.; Respondent: Respondent No. 4 (tenant, name not given)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 August 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Order Dismissing Petition Under Article 227
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Personal Cultivation, Definition of Person Under Tenancy Law, Jurisdictional Immunity Under Article 31 a
Land Law Tenancy Law Constitutional Law Personal Cultivation Definition of Person Under Tenancy Law Jurisdictional Immunity Under Article 31 a

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kalanka Devi Sansthan

Appellant

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur & Ors.

Respondents

Respondent No. 4 (tenant, name not given)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Order Dismissing Petition Under Article 227

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a private religious trust (Sansthan) or idol can recover possession from a tenant for 'personal cultivation' under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958
  2. 2 Whether such trust or idol falls within the scope of 'person' for purposes of 'personal cultivation' as defined by s. 2(12) and Explanation I of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the Act violates Articles 14, 19(1)(f) of the Constitution with respect to such trusts

Ratio Decidendi

A Sansthan, being a juristic person, is not entitled to recover possession of agricultural land from a tenant for the purpose of 'personal cultivation' under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, since 'personal cultivation' contemplates actual labour or supervision by a natural person, not a legal entity. The statutory framework and constitutional rules (particularly Article 31A) preclude challenge to this exclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to respondents.