HARI MAHIPATI GHODKE Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Exserviceman. He was allotted three (3) acres land out of land Gut No. 19-A, situated at village Sangvi (Karadkhed) under Degloor Tahsil in the year 1982. The land was delineated from the land of respondent No. 4 Vasantrao since he was found to be surplus land holder. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was in actual possession of the land allotted to him during course of distribution of the surplus land since 1982.

(2.) The land holder i.e. respondent No. 4 Vasantrao had filed Return under section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, "the Ceiling on Holdings Act"). He held six (6) parcels of land situated in two villages, including land Gut No. 19-A. His total holding was found to be 73 acres and 5 parcels of such lands were irrigated one. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short, "S.L.D.T.) held on 19th March, 1976 that respondent No. 4 Vasantrao was holder of surplus land to the extent of 5 acres 24 gunthas. The decision of the S.L.D.T. was challenged by respondent No. 4 Vasantrao by filing appeal under section 21 of the Ceiling of Holdings Act. His appeal bearing case No. 1120/A/ 76/NANDED was decided by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.), Aurangabadon 17th June, 1976. The M.R.T. held that the S.L.D.T. shall determine the area of potkharab land for the purpose of exclusion from the holding of respondent No. 4 Vasantrao. Dissatisfied with such direction to hold enquiry, the respondent No. 4 -Vasantrao filed Special Civil Application No. 3597/1976 in this Court. This Court came to the conclusion that respondent No. 4 Vasantrao was entitled to seek exclusion of 7 acres 15 gunthas land from the holdings because that was legally sold on 30th October, 1972. This Court held that the area of 11 acres 17 gunlhaswas claimed to have been part of unused (potkharab) land out of the holding and determination of such area could be effected after due enquiry by the S.L.D.T. This Court directed that while determining the holding and the surplus, if necessary, the S.L.D.T. would take into consideration the transfer of 7 acres 15 gunthas, which was found to be valid one. The S.L.D.T. thereafter inquired into the matter, effected the necessary deduction, of the alienated 7 acres 15 gunthas land from the holdings of respondent No. 4 Vasantrao and ultimately, came to the conclusion that he was holder of surplus land to the extent of 4 acres 19 gunthas as contemplated under section 21 of the Ceiling on Holdings Act. The S.L.D.T. came to the conclusion that there was only 13 acres 17 gunthas land which could be excluded as potkharab and considering the entire holding of respondent No. 4 Vasantrao, instead of earlier finding that he was surplus land holder to the extent of 5 acres and 24 gunthas, he was held to be holder of surplus land to the extent of 4 acres 19 gunthas. This finding was rendered vide order dated 19th May, 1982 by the learned Additional Tahsildar of the S.L.D.T. Though respondent No. 4 Vasantrao did not challenge the said findings of the S.L.D.T. and maintained silence as regards such surplus land determined, yet, the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, suo motu commenced revision proceedings under section 45(2) of the Ceiling on Holdings Act. The learned Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that the potkharab land was not properly identified and measured by the District Inspector of Land Records (DILR). The learned Additional Commissioner held that the potkharab land was required to be measured after carrying of survey and thereafter afresh finding to be given by the S.L.D.T. In pursuance to the said directions, the learned Assistant Collector conducted the enquiry and held that respondent No. 4 Vasantrao was not the surplus land holder. This was done behind back of the petitioner. He was likely to be affected due to such findings in as much as the land allotted to him could have been withdrawn as a sequel to such orders. He, therefore, preferred an appeal under section 33(2) of the Ceiling on Holdings Act. His appeal bearing case No. 178/A/90N was entertained by the M.R.T. The M.R.T. held that the findings of the learned Assistant Collector were legal and proper. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed vide the impugned judgement. Hence, the petition.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P.