Tenant Rights vs. Land Cultivation: Bombay High Court’s Insightful Take on Section 32R of the Tenancy Act.

In a rural country like India, land is more than just soil—it's livelihood, identity, and dignity. But what happens when a tenant, due to genuine hardships, is unable to cultivate their land personally? Does that automatically make them liable for eviction? The Bombay High Court recently tackled this very question—and its ruling is a significant moment for tenant rights.

 fact the case 

The case involved a family of tenants who had been in possession of agricultural land since 1st April 1957. The father of the primary petitioner was officially declared the deemed purchaser by the Agricultural Land Tribunal, meaning he had the right to own the land he had been cultivating.

However, a problem arose—at some point, the land was not being personally cultivated by the petitioner. This led to questions under Section 32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which deals with the consequences faced by a purchaser who fails to personally cultivate the 

Section 32R

On paper, Section 32R is strict. It suggests that if a tenant fails to cultivate land personally without legal justification, it could lead to resumption (or forfeiture) of the land.

But here's where the Bombay High Court, led by Justice Amit Borkar, stepped in to provide much-needed clarity.

Not Just Black and White

Justice Borkar explained that not every instance of non-cultivation warrants eviction. The law must be understood not in isolation, but within the full context of each case.

The Court observed:

“The requirement of personal cultivation under the Act is strict, but it is not without exception… The Collector may condone the failure if there is ‘sufficient reason’.”

In simpler terms: Life happens. A tenant may fall ill, grow old, face financial hardships, or be unable to cultivate for valid reasons. The law should not punish people for circumstances beyond their control.

No Malicious Intent, No Eviction

In this case, there was no evidence that the tenant abandoned the land or illegally transferred it to someone else. That’s important. The Court made it clear that eviction is a serious and drastic step—one that should only be taken when it’s proven that the tenant has completely and deliberately withdrawn from the land.

“The failure to cultivate must not be viewed in isolation… it must be assessed in the backdrop of the totality of circumstances including age, health, economic condition, and conduct of the tenant.”

A Fair and Balanced View

This judgment is a reflection of the judiciary’s sensitive approach to agrarian justice. It protects the rights of genuine farmers while still keeping legal accountability in place.

It also sends a strong message: law must be interpreted with empathy, especially when it affects livelihoods.