Mere Non-Cultivation Without Parting Possession Does Not Justify Eviction Under Section 32R: Bombay High Court Protects Tenant’s Statutory Rights

“To take away land from a statutory owner under agrarian reform laws, the failure to cultivate must be serious, intentional, and amount to abandonment — mere lapse or old age cannot justify such drastic action”, -Bombay High Court delivered a landmark judgment safeguarding tenants’ rights under agrarian reform statutes. The Court held that non-cultivation of land due to old age or economic hardship, without sub-letting or misuse, does not amount to a violation under Section 32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and thus cannot justify eviction. The order passed in 1975 evicting the petitioner’s father was quashed.

Justice Amit Borkar, in a detailed and welfare-centric judgment, emphasized:

“To interpret Section 32R in a manner that renders tenants vulnerable to eviction due to temporary lapses is to defeat the very object of agrarian reforms.”

The case pertains to agricultural land at Village Bakul, Taluka Haveli, Pune. The petitioners’ father, a deemed purchaser under the Tenancy Act, had secured ownership rights in 1964 and paid the purchase price. However, in 1975, an order under Sections 32P and 32R evicted him for alleged non-cultivation.

The tenant, aged about 82 at the time and illiterate, allegedly admitted that the land remained fallow due to old age and loans. Based on that, authorities passed eviction orders. The petitioners discovered this much later and pursued legal remedy, leading to protracted litigation up to the High Court.

The core question was:

“Does non-cultivation without parting possession justify eviction under Section 32R?”

The Court answered emphatically in the negative.

The Court clarified the interplay of Section 32P (resumption when purchase fails) and Section 32R (post-purchase lapse in cultivation). Justice Borkar held: “Section 32R imposes a continuing obligation to cultivate, but not every lapse amounts to forfeiture — only abandonment or misuse does.”

Importantly, the Court underscored the welfare objective of the law: “The Tenancy Act is not punitive — it is a remedial statute aimed at land justice. Section 32R is an exception and must be construed narrowly.”

Referring to K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Amrut Bhikaji Kale, the Court ruled that procedural fairness, purpose of legislation, and proportionality are constitutional mandates, even post the 44th Amendment.

The High Court emphasized: “The 1975 eviction order was passed without a proper inquiry... A single-line statement by an aged illiterate farmer cannot be treated as waiver or consent.”

“Non-cultivation alone, without abandonment or misuse, especially when the tenant remains in possession, does not meet the threshold for eviction.”

“Courts must scrutinize such actions closely — the power under Section 32R cannot be used to undo the very reform the law seeks to implement.”

The Court noted that no notice, explanation opportunity, or legal assistance was provided in 1975. The process was perfunctory:

“Fair hearing is not a formality. It requires real and informed opportunity. The inquiry here was a mockery of justice.”

The Bombay High Court struck down the 1975 eviction order, ruling it as illegal, unjust, and violative of natural justice, thereby restoring the petitioners’ right over the agricultural land.

“Ownership once vested by law cannot be undone without strict compliance and grave justification. Section 32R is not a tool to reverse land reform.”

Date of Decision: 05 May 2025