{"id":234720,"date":"1979-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979"},"modified":"2017-11-06T00:49:18","modified_gmt":"2017-11-05T19:19:18","slug":"navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979","title":{"rendered":"Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1055, \t\t 1979 SCR (3) 329<\/div>\n
Author: D Desai<\/div>\n
Bench: Desai, D.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNAVINCHANDRA RAMANLAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKALIDAS BHUDARBHAI AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/02\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nSHINGAL, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR 1055\t\t  1979 SCR  (3) 329\n 1979 SCC  (4)\t75\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1991 SC1538\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\n     Bombay Tenancy  & Agricultural  Lands Act, 1956-Ss. 43C\nand 88(1)(b)-Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Sections  43C   and  88   of  the\tBombay\tTenancy\t and\nAgricultural Lands Act, 1948 exempted certain lands from the\noperation of  the Act.\tSection 43C provided that nothing in\ns. 32  to s.  32R (both\t inclusive) and s. 43 shall apply to\nlands in  the  \"area  within  the  limits\"  of\ta  Municipal\nCorporation  constituted   under   the\t Bombay\t  Provincial\nMunicipal Corporations Act, 1948. The Gujarat Amendment Act,\n1965 substituted  the words  \"areas which  on  the  date  of\ncoming into  force of  the Amending Act, 1956 and within the\nlimits of\"  for the  words  \"areas  within  the\t limits\t of\"\noccurring in  the original  section. Similarly\ts. 88(1) (b)\nconferred power\t on the State Government to exempt land from\nthe operation  of the  provision of  the Act which the State\nGovernment may,\t from time to 1 time, by notification in the\nofficial  Gazette,   specify  as  being\t reserved  for\tnon-\nagricultural or\t industrial development.  The Amendment Act,\n36 of  1965 engrafted  a proviso  to cl.  (b) of  s.  88(1),\nproviding that\tif after  a notification  in respect  of any\narea specified\tin the notification is issued under the said\nclause, whether\t before or  after the  commencement  of\t the\nBombay Tenancy\tand Agricultural  Lands Act, 1965 the limits\nof the\tarea so\t specified are\tenlarged on  account of\t the\naddition of  any other\tarea thereto, then, merely by reason\nof such addition the reservation as made by the notification\nso issued  shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have\napplied to the area so added.\n     The appellant  was the owner of survey No. 165 situated\nwithin the  revenue limits  of village Acher near Ahmedabad.\nFor sometime  prior to 1946 the respondent had been a tenant\nof this\t land. By  virtue of  the provisions  of the  Bombay\nTenancy Act,  1939 the\trespondent became a protected tenant\nand continued  to be  so under\tthe Tenancy  Act, 1948.\t The\nAmendment Act of 1956 provided for the transfer of ownership\nof the\tland from the landlord to the tenant by operation of\nlaw. The  day was styled as tillers' day. Under this section\nevery tenant  was deemed to have purchased from his landlord\nfree  from   all  encumbrances\tsubsisting  thereon  on\t the\ntillers' day  the land\theld by\t him as tenant. By virtue of\nthis provision the tenant claimed himself to be the owner of\nthe land\n     On August\t9, 1956 the Government issued a notification\nspecifying the\tarea within  the  limits  of  the  Municipal\nCorporation of\tAhmedabad as  being reserved  for urban non-\nagricultural and  industrial development.  This notification\nwas  superseded\t by  another  notification  dated  the\t14th\nFebruary, 1957\tby which  the Government  specified, amongst\nothers,\t the  areas  within  the  limits  of  the  Municipal\nCorporation of\tthe city  of Ahmedabad as being reserved for\nthe above  mentioned purpose.  Subsequently  the  Government\nextended the  limits of\t the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation\nby reason of which survey\n330\nNo. 165 which was formerly outside the Municipal limits, was\nincluded within\t the area  of the  Municipal Corporation  of\nAhmedabad as from May 30, 1959.\n     In an  inquiry by\tthe Agricultural  Lands Tribunal for\ndetermining the\t purchase price\t of the\t land the appellant-\nlandlord contended  before the\tTribunal  that\tin  view  of\ns.88(1)(b) read\t with the  notification of February 14, 1957\nthe land  (survey No.  165) was exempt from the operation of\nthe 1948  Act and  that the  inquiry should be dropped. This\ncontention was\tnegatived and  the appeal  by  the  landlord\nfailed. In  revision preferred\tby the landlord, the Revenue\nTribunal was  of the opinion that not merely the lands which\nwere in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation area at the date\nof the\tnotification would be exempted from the operation of\nthe Tenancy  Act but  the exemption would also extend to the\nlands brought  within the Corporation area from time to time\nwithout any fresh notification for reservation.\n     In the  respondents-tenants'  writ\t petition  the\tHigh\nCourt held  that the exemption would apply only to the lands\nincluded within\t the limits  of the Municipal Corporation as\non the\tdate of the notification and in the absence of fresh\nreservation by a fresh notification the land included in the\nMunicipal area\ton extension  of the limits of the Municipal\nCorporation subsequent\tto the\tnotification would not enjoy\nthe exemption from the operation of the Tenancy Act.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: 1 (a) From the language of the amendments made in\ns. 43C\tand s.88(1)(b)\tit is clear that both the amendments\nare retroactive\t from August  1, 1956 i.e. from the date the\nBombay Tenancy\tand Agricultural  Lands (Amendment) Act 1956\ncame into  force. In  other words  the amended\ts.43C and s.\n88(1)(b) with  its proviso  will have  to be read as if they\nhave been  introduced in  their amended\t form from August 1,\n1956. [336 A-B]\n     (b) The land of survey No. 165 would be governed by the\nTenancy Act,  1948. The land which was originally within the\nrevenue limits\tof the\tvillage was  included in the area of\nthe Ahmedabad  Municipal Corporation from May 30, 1959. When\nthe amended  s. 43C  and s.  88(1) (b) with its proviso came\ninto force  on August  1, 1956,\t the land  not being  in the\nMunicipal Corporation area, would not enjoy the exemption as\nconferred on  the land within the Municipal Corporation area\nby the\tnotification issued  on August 9, 1956 superseded by\nthe subsequent notification of February 14, 1957. [336D-E]\n     2(a) The  respondent was  a tenant\t on the tillers' day\nand has\t by operation  of law  become the owner and a deemed\npurchaser. [338 F]\n     (b) The  land (Survey  No.\t 165)  was  not\t within\t the\nMunicipal Corporation  area either on February 14, 1957, the\ndate on which the exemption was granted or on August 1, 1956\nwhen Bombay  Act XIII  of 1956\twas put into operation or on\nApril 1,  1957 the  tillers' day  when title  to land  would\nstand transferred  to the  tenant by  sheer operation of law\nwithout anything  more.\t Therefore  the\t Notification  dated\nFebruary 14,  1957 would not cover the land which was at the\ndate of\t the issue  of\tthe  Notification  not\tincluded  in\nAhmedabad Municipal  Corporation area.\tSubsequent extension\nof the\tarea of\t Municipal Corporation\twould not ipso facto\nqualify the  lands falling  within  the\t extended  area\t for\nexemption in  view of  the proviso  to\ts.88(1)(b)  and\t the\nopening word  of s.  43C, both\tof which clearly recite that\nthe exemp-\n331\ntion would  apply to  the land\tincluded  in  the  Municipal\nCorporation area  on August  1, 1956,  the date on which the\nBombay\tAct  13,  1956\tcame  into  force  and\tnot  to\t any\nsubsequently  added   area  to\t the   area   of   Municipal\nCorporation. Since the land was brought within the Municipal\nCorporation area after August 1, 1956 the Notification dated\nFebruary 14,  1957 would  not cover  such added\t or extended\narea and there would be no exemption under that Notification\nfor the land in the extended area. [338B-E]\n     (c) The  ratio in\tthe decisions  in Mohanlal  Chunilal\nKothari v.  Tribhovan Haribhai\tTamboli<\/a> [1963]\t2 S.C.R. 707\nand Sidram Narasappa Kamble v. Sholapur Borough Municipality<\/a>\n[1966] 1  S.C.R. 618  would not\t apply because\tthose  cases\nturned upon  the construction  of s.88(1)(b)  as it stood at\nthe relevant  time. Presumably in order to combat the effect\nof some\t judgments which  purported to\tlay  down  that\t the\nexemption once\tgranted would  apply to any area that may be\nincluded in the Corporation area at a date much later to the\ndate of\t the issue  of the Notification, the amendment of s.\n88(1)(b) was  made. The\t law  having  undergone\t substantive\namendment bearing on the subject, the earlier decision would\nbe of no assistance. [339 A-D]\n     Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli<\/a>\n[1963] 2 S.C.R. 707  and Sidram Narasappa Kamble v. Sholapur\nBorough Municipality<\/a> [1966] 1 S.C.R. 618 held inapplicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2200 of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and Decree
\ndated 26\/28th  March, 1969  of the  Gujarat  High  Court  in
\nS.C.A. No. 543 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
     J. N.  Shroff, R.\tP. Kapur  and H.  S. Parihar for the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     J. C. Shah and Vineet Kumar for the Respondents.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     DESAI, J.-This  appeal by\tspecial leave  arises from a
\njudgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil
\nApplication No.\t 542 of 1964 filed by the present respondent
\nNo. 1 against the present appellant contending that the land
\ninvolved in  the dispute is not exempt from the operation of
\nthe  Bombay   Tenancy  and   Agricultural  Lands  Act,\t1948
\n(`Tenancy Act’ for short).\n<\/p>\n
     A brief  recital of the facts will put the point of law
\nraised herein  in proper perspective. Appellant is the owner
\nof Survey  No. 165  measuring 2 acres 21 gunthas situated in
\nVillage Acher,\tCity Taluka,  District Ahmedabad. Respondent
\nis and\thas been  the tenant of this land since before 1946.
\nHe became  a protected\ttenant under  the Bombay Tenancy Act
\n1939 and  his name  appeared in\t the Register  to  protected
\ntenants maintained  under that\tAct. On the introduction. Of
\nthe Tenancy  Act of  1948 the respondent continued to be the
\nprotected tenant  under it.  A very  comprehensive amendment
\nwas made  the Tenancy  Act of 1948 by the Bombay Tenancy and
\nAgricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Bombay Act XIII of
\n1956) (`1956
\n332<\/span>
\n     Act’ for  short). Section\t32 as  amended by  1956\t Act
\nprovided for  transfer of  ownership  of  the  land  from  a
\nlandlord to  the tenant of the land by operation of law. The
\nday was\t styled as  `tiller’s day’  and section\t 32 provided
\nthat subject  to the  other provisions\tof the\tsection\t and
\nprovisions of the next succeeding section every tenant shall
\nbe deemed to have purchased from this landlord free from all
\nencumbrances subsisting\t thereon on  the said  day, the land
\nheld by\t him as tenant. The land involved in this appeal was
\none to\twhich the  Tenancy Act\tof 1948\t as amended  by\t the
\nAmending Act of 1956 applied and by the operation of law the
\ntenant-the respondent claimed to be the owner of the land.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 88\t of the\t Tenancy Act  of 1948 as it stood at
\nthe relevant  time provided  for exemption  of certain lands
\nfrom its  provisions, one such exemption being in respect of
\nany area  which the State Government may, by notification in
\nthe official  Gazette, specify\tas being  reserved for urban
\nnon-agricultural or  industrial development. Armed with this
\npower\t the\t Government    issued\t Notification\t No.
\nTNC\/5156\/101955-F dated\t 9th August,  1956  whereby  amongst
\nothers the  Government specified  the area within the limits
\nof the\tMunicipal Corporations\tof the\tcities of  Poona and
\nAhmedabad as  being reserved  for urban non-agricultural and
\nindustrial development.\t This Notification was superseded by
\nanother\t Notification\tNo.  TNC\/5156\/169426-M\t dated\t14th
\nFebruary  1957\twhereby\t the  Government  specified  amongst
\nothers\tthe   areas  within  the  limits  of  the  Municipal
\nCorporations of\t the cities  of Poona and Ahmedabad as being
\nreserved for  the above-mentioned  purpose. Neither  of\t the
\nNotifications at  the date of issue had any relevance to the
\nland involved  in this\tappeal because\tit was\tnot situated
\nwithin the area of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
     Subsequently the  Government  extended  the  limits  of
\nAhmedabad Municipal  Corporation whereby  Acher\t Village  in
\nwhich Survey No. 165 is situated was included in the area of
\nMunicipal Corporation  of Ahmedabad  on and  from 30th\tMay,
\n1959.\n<\/p>\n
     In January\t 1960  Agricultural  Lands  Tribunal  having
\njurisdiction over  the area  wherein the  Survey No.  165 is
\nsituated, commenced  an enquiry\t under s. 32G of the Tenancy
\nAct of\t1948 for  determining the purchase price of the land
\non the footing that under s. 32 respondent\/tenant has become
\nthe deemed  purchaser of  it. In  the course of this enquiry
\nthe appellant  landlord gave an application that the land in
\nrespect of  which the  enquiry is being held is now included
\nwithin the  limits of Municipal Corporation at Ahmedabad and
\nhence in  view of  s. 88(1)  (b) read  with the Notification
\ndated 14th February,
\n333<\/span>
\n1957, it  was exempted\tfrom the operation of ss. 1 to 87 of
\nthe Tenancy  Act of  1948 and, therefore, the enquiry should
\nbe dropped.  The Agricultural  Lands Tribunal  rejected\t the
\napplication of\tthe  appellant-land-landlord  and  proceeded
\nfurther with the enquiry. The appellant-landlord appealed to
\nthe Collector  which mer  with the  same fate.\tAppellant  –
\ncarried the  matter to\tthe Gujarat  Revenue  Tribunal.\t The
\nRevenue Tribunal  was of  the opinion  that on\ta  true\t and
\ncorrect interpretation of s. 88(1)(b) read with the relevant
\nnotification, not  merely the  lands which were in Ahmedabad
\nMunicipal Corporation  area at\tthe date of the Notification
\nwould be  exempted from the operation of the Tenancy Act but
\nthe exemption  would also extend to the lands brought within
\nthe Corporation area from time to time without any fresh C N
\nNotification for  reservation and  accordingly\tallowed\t the
\nRevision Application  of the appellant-landlord and directed
\nthat the enquiry under s. 32G be dropped. The respondent no.
\n1-tenant approached  the High Court of Gujarat under Article
\n227 of\tthe Constitution.  The\tHigh  Court  held  that\t the
\nexemption would\t apply only to the lands included within the
\nlimits of  the Municipal  Corporation of Ahmedabad as on the
\ndate of\t Notification  and  in\tthe  absence  of  the  fresh
\nreservation by\ta fresh\t notification the  lands included in
\nthe Municipal  area  on\t extension  of\tthe  limits  of\t the
\nMunicipal Corporation  Subsequent to  the Notification would
\nnot be\texempted from  the operation  of the Tenancy Act. In
\nreaching this  conclusion one aspect that impressed the High
\nCourt was  that while  power to\t exempt the  land  from\t the
\noperation of  the Tenancy  Act vests  in the Government, the
\narea of\t the Municipal\tCorporation may\t be extended  by the
\nCorporation authority  and if  to  such\t extended  area\t the
\nexemption were\tto apply,  the power  of granting  exemption
\nwould be  enjoyed by Municipal Corporation which was not the
\nlegislative delegate  and on  which the\t power to exempt was
\nnot concerned  and simultaneously, the legislative delegate,
\nnamely,\t State\tGovernment  would  completely  abdicate\t its
\nfunction. This\taspect is  specifically referred  to  as  it
\nproceeds  on   an  erroneous   assumption   that   Municipal
\nCorporation can\t extend its own area. A reference to section
\n3 of  the Bombay  Provincial Municipal Corporation Act would
\nshow that  unless the  State Government\t in exercise  of the
\npower conferred\t upon it,  extends the limits, the Municipal
\nCorporation  on\t  its  own  cannot  extend  the\t limit.\t The
\nassumption being  incorrect, it\t cannot be  called in aid of
\nthe conclusion reached by the High Court. Mr. J. C. Shah for
\nthe respondent,\t however, frankly  stated that\the could not
\nsupport the  aforementioned reason  of the  High Court\tand,
\ntherefore, the\tCourt should ignore it. We would say no more
\nabout it. In accordance with its opinion that
\n334<\/span>
\nthe land  falling in  the subsequently\textended limit would
\nnot enjoy  the benefit\tof exemption, the High Court quashed
\nthe order  of the  Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and directed the
\nauthority under\t the Tenancy Act to proceed further with the
\nenquiry under s. 32G.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. I.  N. Shroff, learned counsel who appeared for the
\nappellant urged\t that the High Court was in error in putting
\na narrow  construction on  s. 88(1) (b) because the power to
\nexempt an  area situate\t within\t the  Municipal\t Corporation
\nlimit was  to be  exercised for\t urban\tnon-agricultural  or
\nindustrial  development\t  and  that   once  such   power  is
\nexercised, it  should cover  the entire\t area situate within
\nthe limits  of Municipal  Corporation at  any given point of
\ntime, and  this\t construction  adopted\tby  Gujarat  Revenue
\nTribunal deserves acceptance by this Court as it effectuates
\nthe purpose  for which\tpower is  conferred. It\t was further
\ncontended that\tonce a\tNotification exempting the land from
\nthe operation  of the  Tenancy Act  is issued under s. 88(1)\n<\/p>\n
(b), the  exemption would  become operative  retrospectively
\nand no vested right could thereafter be claimed.\n<\/p>\n
     The  contention   raised  by   Mr.\t Shroff\t would\thave
\nnecessitated  examination  of  the  scheme  of\tthe  various
\nprovisions of  the Tenancy  Act as has been done by the High
\nCourt but  in  our  opinion  the  High\tCourt  unnecessarily
\nundertook this\texercise wholly\t overlooking and  by passing
\ntwo  important\t amendments  introduced\t  in  the   relevant
\nprovisions of  the Tenancy  Act of 1948, viz., 43C and 88(1)
\nboth of\t which were  in force  at the time when the petition
\nwas heard and upon proper construction both amendments being
\nretroactive in\ttheir operation from the commencement of the
\nAmendment Act  of 1956\twhich came into force on 1st August,
\n1956 would  have clinched  the issue.  Therefore, it  is not
\nnecessary to  examine the  contention from  the\t angle\tfrom
\nwhich the  High Court  has done\t but the  contention of\t Mr.
\nShroff can  be disposed\t of by\ta mere\treference to the two
\nrelevant provisions.\n<\/p>\n
     The two sections relevant for considering the exemption
\nfrom the  operation of\tthe Tenancy  Act of 1948 are 43C and\n<\/p>\n
88. Section  43C as it stood before its amendment by Gujarat
\nAct 36 of 1965 read as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “43C. Nothing\t in ss.\t 32 to\t32R, both inclusive,
\n     and 43  shall apply  to lands  in the  areas within the
\n     limits of-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) xxx\t    xxx\t\t   xxx\t\t  xxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  Municipal  Corporation  constituted  under  Bombay
\n     Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1948″.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 88(1)(b)  as it stood prior to the introduction
\nof a proviso by Gujarat Act 36 of 1965 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
335<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “88.(1) Save\tas otherwise  expressly provided  in
\n     sub-s. (2)\t nothing in the foregoing provisions of this
\n     Act shall apply-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a).\t    x\t      x\t\tx\t  x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) to  any area  which the  State Government  may from
\n     time to  time by  Notification in\tthe official gazette
\n     specify  as  being\t reserved  for\tnon-agricultural  or
\n     industrial development”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Tenancy  Act of  1948 was  amended  by\t the  Bombay
\nTenancy and  Agricultural  Lands  (Gujarat  Amendment)\tAct,
\n1965, (Gujarat\tAct 36\tof 1965). Section 7 of the Amendment
\nAct of 1965 reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “7. Amendment\t of section  43C of  Bom.  LXVII  of
\n     1948-In section  43C of the principal Act, for the word
\n     `areas within the limits of’, the words `areas which on
\n     the date  of the coming into force of the Amending Act,
\n     1955 are within the limits of’ shall be substituted and
\n     shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect on
\n     and from 1st August, 1956”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 18 of the Amending Act reads as under:
\n\t  “18. Amendment  of section  88 of  Bom.  LXVII  of
\n     1948-In section 88 of the principal Act,-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n     (1) in sub-section (1),\n     (i)  x    x    x\t x    x\t   x\tx    x\t  x\n<\/pre>\n
     (ii) to  clause (b)  the following\t provision shall  be
\n\t  added, namely:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that if after a notification in respect of any
\narea specified\tin the\tnotification is\t issued\t under\tthis
\nclause, whether\t before or  after the  commencement  of\t the
\nBombay Tenancy\tand Agricultural  Lands (Gujarat  Amendment)
\nAct, 1965  (Guj. 36  of 1965),\tthe limits  of the  area  so
\nspecified are  enlarged on  account of\tthe addition  of any
\nother area  thereto, then merely by reason of such addition,
\nthe reservation\t as made by the notification so issued shall
\nnot apply  and shall  be deemed never to have applied to the
\narea so\t added, notwithstanding\t anything  to  the  contrary
\ncontained in  any judgment,  decree, or\t order of any court,
\ntribunal or any other authority”.\n<\/p>\n
336<\/span><\/p>\n
     Both  these   amendments  to  the\tPrincipal  Act\twere
\nintroduced by  Gujarat Act  36 of 1965 which came into force
\nfrom 29th  December, 1965.  However, looking to the language
\nof the\tamendments made\t in s. 43C and s. 88(1)(b), both the
\namendments are\tretroactive from  1st August 1956, i.e. from
\nthe date  Bombay Act  13 of  1956 came\tinto force. In other
\nwords, amended\ts.43C and  s.88(1)(b) with  its proviso will
\nhave to be read as if they were introduced in that very form
\nfrom 1st August, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
     Having noticed the amendments let us look to its impact
\non the question of application of the Tenancy Act of 1948 to
\nthe lands  included in\tthe Municipal  Corporation  area  of
\nAhmedabad after 1st August, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
     Indisputably, Survey No. 165, the land involved in this
\nappeal, being  situated within\tthe revenue  limits of Acher
\nVillage, was  included in  the area  of Ahmedabad  Municipal
\nCorporation from  30th May,  1959. Therefore,  on 1st August
\n1956 when  the amended\tsections 43C  and 88(1)(b)  with its
\nproviso as  amended by\tAct 36\tof 1965 came into force, the
\nland being  not in  Municipal Corporation  area,  would\t not
\nenjoy the  exemption as\t conferred on  the land\t within\t the
\nMunicipal Corporation area by the Notification issued on 9th
\nAugust, 1956,  superseded  by  the  subsequent\tNotification
\ndated 14th February, 1957 in exercise of the power conferred
\nby s. 88(1) (b). Accordingly, this land Survey No. 165 would
\nbe governed  by the Tenancy Act of 1948. The consequences of
\nthe application\t of the\t Tenancy Act  of 1948 to land Survey
\nNo. 165 may now be examined.\n<\/p>\n
     By Bombay\tAct 13\tof 1956 a revolutionary amendment of
\nfar reaching consequence was made in the Tenancy Act of 1948
\nand the\t amended Act  came into\t force with  effect from 1st
\nAugust, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
     The most important provision of the Amending Act was s.
\n32 as  amended\tby  the\t Amending  Act\twhich  provided\t for
\ntransfer of  the ownership  of land by operation of law from
\nthe landlord  to the  tenant. The  title to  the land  which
\nvested in the landlord on 1st April, 1957, the tiller’s day,
\npassed to the tenant by operation of law. What is the effect
\nof this\t transfer of title was examined by this Court in Sri
\nRam Ram\t Narain Medhi  v. State of Bombay.<\/a>(1) The Court held
\nas under.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The title  of the  landlord to  the\tland  passes
\n     immediately to the tenant on the tiller’s day and there
\n     is a  completed purchase or sale thereof as between the
\n     landlord and the tenant. The tenant is no doubt given a
\n     locus penitentiae and an option of declaring whether he
\n     is or is not willing to
\n337<\/span>
\n     purchase the  land held by him as a tenant. If he fails
\n     to appear\tor makes  a statement that he is not willing
\n     to purchase the land, the Tribunal shall by an order in
\n     writing declare  that such\t tenant is  not\t willing  to
\n     purchase the land and that the purchase is ineffective.
\n     It is  only by  such a declaration by the Tribunal that
\n     the  purchase   becomes   ineffective.   If   no\tsuch
\n     declaration is  made by the Tribunal the purchase would
\n     stand as  statutorily effected  on the tiller’s day and
\n     will continue  to be  operative, the only obligation on
\n     the tenant\t then being the payment of price in the mode
\n     determined by  the\t Tribunal.  If\tthe  tenant  commits
\n     default in\t the payment of such price either in lump or
\n     by instalments  as determined  by the  Tribunal, s. 32M
\n     declares the  purchase to\tbe ineffective\tbut in\tthat
\n     event the\tland shall  then be  at the  disposal of the
\n     Collector to  be disposed\tof  by\thim  in\t the  manner
\n     provided therein.\tHere also  the purchase continues to
\n     be effective  as  from  the  tiller’s  day\t until\tsuch
\n     default is\t committed and\tthere is  no question  of  a
\n     conditional purchase  or sale  taking place between the
\n     landlord and  tenant. The\ttitle to  the land which was
\n     vested originally\tin the landlord passes to the tenant
\n     on\t the   tiller’s\t day   or  the\t alternative  period
\n     prescribed in  that behalf.  This title  is  defeasible
\n     only in  the event\t of the\t tenant failing to appear or
\n     making a  statement that  he is not willing to purchase
\n     the land  or committing default in payment of the price
\n     thereof as\t determined by the Tribunal. The tenant gets
\n     a vested interest in the land defeasible only in either
\n     of those cases and it cannot therefore be said that the
\n     title of  land lord  to the  land is  suspended for any
\n     period definite or indefinite”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     If the  effect of\tthe land  being governed by s. 32 on
\ntiller’s day is to transfer the title of the landlord to the
\ntenant by  operation of law, defeasible only in the event of
\ntenant declining  to purchase the land or committing default
\nin payment  of price as determined by the Tribunal, the next
\nquestion is:  if the land is subsequently brought within the
\nMunicipal Corporation  area which  area enjoys the exemption
\nunder s. 88(1)(b), would the vested title be vested:\n<\/p>\n
     This question  can be  answered shortly by referring to
\nthe amended  s. 43C  and s. 88(1) (b) with its proviso. both
\nof which  clearly assert that the exemption granted under s.
\n88(1)(b) by a Notification
\n338<\/span>
\nissued by  the Government would enure for the benefit of the
\nland which  was within the Municipal Corporation area on 1st
\nAugust, 1956 and in no case the additional area which may be
\nincluded within\t the Municipal\tCorporation area  after\t 1st
\nAugust, 1956  would  enjoy  the\t exemption  granted  by\t the
\nNotification  unless   a  fresh\t  Notification\tis   issued.
\nAdmittedly, since  14th February, 1957 no fresh Notification
\nis issued.  The land  bearing Survey  No. 165 was not within
\nthe Municipal  Corporation area\t either\t on  14th  February,
\n1957, the  day on  which exemption  was granted,  or on\t 1st
\nAugust, 1956  when Bombay  Act VIII  of 1956  was  put\tinto
\noperation or  on 1st  April, 1957,  the tiller’s  day,\twhen
\ntitle to land would stand transferred to the tenant by sheer
\noperation of  law  without  anything  more.  Therefore,\t the
\nNotification dated  14th February,  1957 would not cover the
\nland which  was at the date of the issue of the Notification
\nnot  included\tin  Ahmadabad  Municipal  Corporation  area.
\nSubsequent extension  of the  area of  Municipal Corporation
\nwould not  enjoy the  benefit of  exemption in\tview of\t the
\nproviso to s. 88(1) (b) and the opening words of s. 43C both
\nof which  clearly recite  that the  exemption would apply to
\nthe land  included in  the Municipal Corporation area on 1st
\nAugust, 1956,  the day\ton which  Bombay Act 13 of 1956 came
\ninto force,  and not  to any  subsequently added area to the
\narea of\t Municipal Corporation.\t Land bearing Survey No. 165
\nwas brought  within the Municipal Corporation area after 1st
\nAugust, 1956  and, therefore,  the Notification\t dated\t14th
\nFebruary, 1957\twould not  cover such added or extended area
\nand there  would be no exemption under that Notification for
\nthe land in the extended area.\n<\/p>\n
     If the  land bearing  Survey No. 165 does not enjoy the
\nbenefit of  exemption  under  s.  88(1)\t (b)  and  it  being
\nagricultural land  in respect  of which\t the respondent\t was
\ntenant on the tiller’s day, the respondent has, by operation
\nof law,\t become the  owner and\tis a  deemed purchaser.\t The
\nAgricultural Lands  Tribunal would  have to proceed with the
\nenquiry to determine the price as required by s. 32G.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Shroff,  however, contended  that the\tdecisions of
\nthis  Court   in  Mohanlal  Chunilal  Kothari  v.  Tribhovan
\nHaribhai Tamboli,<\/a>(1)  and Stdram Narsappa Kamble v. Sholapur
\nBorough\t Municipality,<\/a>(2)   would  clearly   indicate\tthat
\nwhenever a  Notification under s. 88(1) (b) is issued by the
\nappropriate Government\tgranting exemption  to any area from
\nthe operation  of the Tenancy Act for the purposes mentioned
\nin   the    sub-section,   such\t   exemption   will    apply
\nretrospectively.\n<\/p>\n
339<\/span><\/p>\n
and no\tvested right  under the Tenancy Act 1948 or even one
\nunder the  Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, could be claimed by any
\none. It\t is not necessary to examine this contention because
\nsubsequent to  the later  decision in Sidram Narsappa Kamble
\n(supra) the  Tenancy Act  of 1948 was amended by Gujarat Act
\n36 of  1965 making  it abundantly clear that if there is any
\nNotification exempting\tany area  from the  operation of the
\nTenancy Act  issued by\tthe appropriate\t Government under s.
\n88(1) (b), the exemption would enure for the benefit of that
\narea included in the Municipal Corporation as on 1st August,
\n1956 and  in  the  absence  of\ta  fresh  Notification\tsuch
\nexemption would\t not be\t available to  the extended  or area
\nadded  to   the\t area  of  Municipal  Corporation  and\tthis
\namendment is  made effective  notwithstanding any  judgment,
\norder or  decision of the Court or Tribunal to the contrary.
\nPresumably, in\torder to combat the effect of some judgments
\nwhich purported\t to lay down that the exemption once granted
\nwould apply  to\t any  area  that  may  be  included  in\t the
\nCorporation area  at a\tdate much later to the date of issue
\nof the\tNotification, the  amendment was  made. Accordingly,
\nlaw having  undergone a substantive amendment bearing on the
\nsubject, the  ratio in\tthe decision  of  Mohonlal  Chunilal
\nKothari and Sidram Narsappa Kamble (supra) which turned upon
\nthe construction of s. 88(1) (b) as it stood at the relevant
\ntime, would not be of any assistance.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, for  the reasons  herein stated, this appeal
\nfails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.K.A.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n340<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1055, 1979 SCR (3) 329 Author: D Desai Bench: Desai, D.A. PETITIONER: NAVINCHANDRA RAMANLAL Vs. RESPONDENT: KALIDAS BHUDARBHAI AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/02\/1979 BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. SHINGAL, P.N. CITATION: 1979 AIR 1055 1979 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234720","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNavinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1979-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-05T19:19:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-05T19:19:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979\"},\"wordCount\":3358,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979\",\"name\":\"Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-05T19:19:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-05T19:19:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979","datePublished":"1979-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-05T19:19:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979"},"wordCount":3358,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979","name":"Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-05T19:19:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-ramanlal-vs-kalidas-bhudarbhai-and-anr-on-21-february-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbhai And Anr on 21 February, 1979"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234720","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=234720"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234720\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234720"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}