LALJI SINGH RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Abhimanji Chipadaji Kamlesh owned a piece of land admeasuring 137 acres 39 gunthas. He filed a return under S. 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 on 27-7-1962. Before any order could be made by the Sub-Divisional Officer declaring any part of the land belonging to Abhinmanji as surplus land, Abhimanji died on 3rd April 1963 leaving him surviving his widows respondents Nos. 1 and 4, his daughters respondents Nos. 3 and 5 and his son respondent No. 2 as also the heirs and legal representatives of his pre-deceased son, Maruti, namely, respondents Nos. 9, 10 and 11 and the heirs and legal representatives of his deceased daughter Kashi, namely, respondents Nos. 6 to 8.

(2.) During the course of the enquiry before the Sub-Divisional Officer, it came to his notice that Abhimanji had died and notices were accordingly issued to the respondents as heirs and legal representatives of Abhimanji and they were asked to file return u/s. 16 of the Act. The respondents raised a contention before the Sub-Divisional Officer that Abhimanji having died before the publication of a notification declaring any part of his land as surplus, the land belonging to him at the time of his death had devolved on the respondents as his heirs and legal representatives and thereupon they had become independent tenure holders in their own right and since each of them held land within the ceiling applicable to him or her, notices were liable to be discharged. The Sub-divisional Officer, however, by an order dated 31st Aug. 1965 rejected this contention of the respondents and held that it was with reference to the appointed day namely, 26th Jan. 1962 that surplus land belonging to a tenure holder was liable to be determined and since on the appointed day, Abhimanji held 137 acres 39 gunthas of land, 53 acres 39 gunthas of land belonging to him was liable to be declared as surplus land. Tile respondents being aggrieved by this order, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer preferred a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, but the learned member of the Tribunal bearing the revision application, agreed with the view taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer and confirmed the order declaring 53 acres 39 guothas of land to be surplus by an order dated 12-2-1968.

(3.) The respondents were obviously dissatisfied with this order passed by the learned Member of the tribunal and they accordingly filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the decisions of both the Sub-Divisional, Officer and the learned Member of the Tribunal. The High Court by its judgment dated 24th Oct. 1970 reversed the order passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Sub Divisional Officer for disposal according to law. The High Court found that the point arising in the present case was concluded by its own earlier decision in Dadarao v. State of Maharashtra 1969 Mah LJ 813 and, following that decision, the High Court held that on the death of Abhimanji before the declaration of any part of his land as surplus land, the respondents inherited the land belonging to Abhimanji and thereupon each of the respondents was liable to be treated as an independent tenure holder in his or her own right and the ceiling should have been applied on that basis. The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by this view taken by the High Court preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.