SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, one of the principal contentions which are raised, is in regard to the description of certain portions of land appearing in the revenue record as 'Pot-kharab'.

(2.) The petitioner filed a return before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Gangakhed, showing the total land of 91 acres standing in his name. He raised several contentions and sought exclusion in regard to several pieces of lands on various grounds and claimed that S. No. 50 of Pimpri (Zola) should be excluded, as that was in the possession of his mother to whom it was given for her maintenance. S. No. 436, it was claimed, should have been excluded and he also claimed that S. No. 591 was agreed to be sold by him and possession was given to the prospective purchaser, while the land was subsequently sold on 21-1-1972. He also claimed exclusion on the ground that the portion of the land was pot-kharab coming to about 18 acres and 38 gunthas from various survey numbers.

(3.) The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal found the land held by the petitioner was 91 acres. He rejected all the contentions of the petitioner and held that he was a surplus holder to the extent of 37 acres. That surplus land was ordered to be delimited from Survey Nos. 588, 240, 239 and 50. The peitioner carried an appeal to the Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal held that this land which was claimed and liable to be excluded, admeasuring 1 acre 37 gunthas, should not be excluded, as in its own option, the petitioner has "failed to prove that even grass does not grow in that land". It, therefore, included that land. It also negatived other contentions of the netitioner and dismissed the appeal. It may be mentioned that before the Tribunal, not only the petitioner, but his mother Rukminibai also preferred an appeal. In this Court also, two petitions have been filed both by Subhash Chintaman Dhare and his mother Rukminibai.