Tenant's Mere Non-Cultivation Of Land Personally Does Not Amount To Breach Of S.32R Of Tenancy Act: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court stated that mere tenant's non-cultivation of land personally does not amounts to breach of Section 32R of the Tenancy Act.

The Bench of Justice Amit Borkar was addressing the issue of whether mere failure of the tenant to cultivate the land personally, in absence of proof of abandonment or unlawful transfer of possession, would justify resumption of land under Section 32R of the Tenancy Act.

Section 32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, outlines the consequences for a purchaser of land who fails to cultivate it personally.

“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 requirement of personal cultivation under the Act is strict, but it is not without exception. The law itself provides a safeguard – the Collector may condone the failure if there is “sufficient reason”. Therefore, while not cultivating the land is a serious issue, the decision to evict must be taken after considering the reason for such failure” opined the bench.

The bench stated that the failure to cultivate the land under Section 32R must not be viewed in isolation, but must be assessed in the backdrop of the totality of circumstances, including the conduct of the tenant, his ability, age, health, economic condition, and any lawful impediments. Only when the cumulative evidence indicates a complete and deliberate withdrawal from cultivation, can the drastic consequence of forfeiture be invoked.

In this case, the petitioner No.1 was a tenant in possession of the land as on the 1st April 1957. The Agricultural Land Tribunal declared the father of petitioner No.1 as the deemed purchaser of the said land.

According to the petitioners, it was only in the year 2008, upon obtaining the 7/12 extract of the said land, that petitioner No.1 realised that the name of his father did not appear in the revenue records.

The father of petitioner No.1 had left the land fallow for a period. The petitioners learnt that proceedings under Section 32P of the Tenancy Act had been initiated against the father of petitioner No.1 and that an order under Section 32P had been passed to resume the land.

As per the petitioner even assuming that the father of petitioner No.1 had left the land fallow for a period, such conduct does not amount to failure of personal cultivation, unless there is clear and cogent evidence to show that possession was parted with or a third party was inducted for cultivation.

The petitioner submitted that on a plain and purposeful reading of Section 32P of the Tenancy Act, it is evident that the said provision becomes applicable only when the deemed purchaser fails to personally cultivate the land and instead inducts a third party in possession of the suit land.

The bench observed that it must be clearly shown that the tenant consciously and voluntarily stopped cultivating the land, and that such non-cultivation was for a long period and done with the intention to give up the land permanently. Only then can such a harsh step of cancelling ownership be justified.

The bench after going through Section 32R(1) opined that “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. The Act does not support a mechanical or routine cancellation of ownership. What is required is a well-reasoned and lawful decision that respects both the tenant's rights and the purpose of the tenancy law.”

The bench disagreed with the contention of respondent that any instance of non-cultivation should directly result in eviction is also not acceptable.

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, added the bench.

The bench opined that the eviction order passed against the tenant (the petitioner's predecessor) was unlawful and cannot be upheld. The order was based on a wrong interpretation of Sections 32P and 32R of the Act.

In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition.

Case Title: Vitthal Thaku Jagdale v. Nitin Suresh Kadam

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 187

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.8428 OF 2019

Counsel for Petitioner: Prasad Dhakephalkar

Counsel for Respondent: Abhishek Kulkarni with Mr. Sagar Wakale

Click Here To Read/Download Order