BAI ACHHUBA AMAR SINGH V. SRI KALIDAS HARNATH OJHA AND ORS INSC 240; AIR 1967 SC 651; 1964 SCR 853

NAME OF THE CASE Bai Achhuba Amar Singh v Sri Kalidas Harnath Ojha and ors.

FACTS Appellant, Bai Achhuba Amar Singh possessed agricultural land in the state of Gujarat. The respondent, Sri Kalidas Harnath Ojha, was her estate manager and got the land through a sale deed at the time when he was acting as estate manager of the said property. For the said sale, the appellant claimed that the respondent had trespassed on the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, particularly Sections 63 and 64, relating to transfer of agricultural land. But the Mamlatdar cancelled the sale saying that it is null and void. That is why the appellant sought for the respondent’s summary eviction under Section 84 of the Act later on. The respondent pointed out that with the introduction of section 84A anyone with a dispute relating to validity of transfer of land had to approach civil court while opposing the eviction application.

ISSUE DECIDED QUESTIONS: Whether Section 84A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, applies retrospectively to transfers already declared invalid under Section 84.?

HOLDING No, because Section 84A was not aimed at revisiting disputes that have earlier been disposed off under Section 84.

RATIONALE The Supreme Court’s decision was that Section 84A was more of a procedural section which sought to make certain that all related issues touching on the validity of the transfer were to be addressed in civil litigations. But it could be used only prospectively and did not alter final judgments given under Section 84. For a similar reason the Court deemed it improper to apply section 84A retrospectively as this would upset the finality of decisions already made and procedure enshrined by the Act.