VIJAYKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the High court and the authorities constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 committed any error of law in including the land standing in favour of two minor daughters of the tenureholder in his holding as the sale was made in May 1972.

(2.) One Keshavlal was a tenureholder. His wife Smt Chayabai was tenureholder of certain area in her own right. She executed a vyawasthapatra in June 1970 in favour of her two daughters for their maintenance. The land was sold in May 1972 and the sale proceeds are claimed to have been deposited in the name of the daughters. When notices under Ceiling Act were issued it was claimed by the tenureholder that since the land which was sold in 1972 had already been given to the daughters by vyawasthapatra in 1970 it was sale of a land of which the daughters were tenureholders in their own right and, therefore, it was not liable to be included in the holding of the appellant. The claim has not been accepted by any of the authorities, including the High court.

(3.) The learned counsel for appellant argued that since the land was given to the daughters prior to 26/9/1970 they had become tenureholders in their own right and the sale effected by them in 1972 could not be deemed to be covered in Section 10 (1 of the Act. Learned counsel urged that the effect of explanation of Section 10 (1 is only to place the burden on the tenureholder to prove that transfer was not in anticipation or in order to avoid or defeat the object of the amending Act. According to him since vyawasthapatra had been executed earlier for maintenance and the consideration received on sale of the land was deposited in name of the daughters for their maintenance the burden placed on the appellant stood discharged and the High court and the tribunal committed manifest error of law in including the land covered by the sale deed in holding of the appellant.