JUGAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 7th September, 1987. Before the Division Bench, the landholder the petitioner herein, had challenged the dismissal of the writ petition at the stage of admission by the learned single Judge confirming the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, dated 28th February, 1984 and also the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 26th December, 1984, declaring very large areas of land to be in excess of the ceiling area permissible to be held by the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that his family unit, as defined under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', consisted of himself, his wife, two sons and a minor daughter. His further case was that during the period between 26-9-1970 to 2-10-1975, he did not hold any land of his own. His wife Vidyavati was holding during the said period certain land (particulars whereof are not necessary). His son, who was minor, was also holding during the said period, certain other plots of land. His another son, a minor, was also holding some more land.

(3.) Hence, it appears that the petitioner's case was that his family Unit was holding land to the extent of 50 Acres 73 Gunthas, and there was no surplus land in the holding of his family Unit. The petitioner's further contention was that his son had leased out to the respondent certain area of land. Similarly, there are properties leased out to the tenant. It appears that the total land holdings, as per the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, was 54 (Sic) acres and out of remaining of 112.28 acres, the petitioner was allowed to retain 54 acres, and the other 58.28 acres of land was declared as the surplus land. This finding was maintained in appeal by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, and was challenged before the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application.