SHIVDAS MANSING Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks to challenge the order passed by the M. R. T. in appeal preferred by the petitioner, from a decision of the S L. D. T. The petitioner tiled his sec. 12 return on 17-11-1975, after 1975 amendment. It showed the holding in possession of the petitioner at 127-a, 10G. It may be stated that this included 2 land S.Nos. 123 of 13-A. 31-G and 1 29 of 9-A. 11G According to petitioner, .No.123 was sold by him to the respondent 4 from whom he had purchased S. No. 129. He contended before the S. L D T. rhat S,No. 123 should not be included in his holding for purpose of calcuating his total holding because he was no longer in his possession of the same The sales in respect of these 2 lands had been taken place on 9 11-1972, There was scope for argument that one of these two lands, S. Nos. 123, shou'd be excluded from his holding. However, the S. L. D. T. noting the fact that petitioner had parted with its possession and had acquired another land in its place, decided to include one of the 2 lands in his holding and that was 129.

(2.) The petitioner had also contended before the S, L. D. T. that S. No. 168 which had been sold by him on 15-3- 1971 for Rs. 42000/-, should be excluded from his total holding because the same has been sold for the purpose of metting, among other things, the marriage expenses of his daughter. The S. L. D. T. did not accept this contention. The net result was that it excluded S. No.123 included S. Nos. 129 & 168, with the consequences that the total holding of the petitioner was calculated at 104-1. 23-G. It may be stated that an area 8-A. 6-G., which had been acquired for what has been described as the Jaikwadi Project, was also excluded from his total holding. Ir by its order dated 16-2-1976 declared that the petitioner was holding a surplus of 24 A. 13-G" This figure was arrived at after miking allowance for a notional partition on behalf of major son.

(3.) This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal No, 723/A/76/Bhir, before the M. R. T. The State preferred neither an appeal nor cross-objections against that decision. Despite this, the M. R. T. proceeded to set aside the finding of the lower Tribunal in respect of S. Nos. 123 and included the same in the total holding of the petitioner. Apart from the illegality of this "rocedure adopted by the M. R. T. there was another error committed by it in adding the acreage of S. No. to 123 to 1-7, thus adding it twice to his holdihg. It also rejected his contention of SUR. No, 168. Thereafter it proceeded to examine the validity of the exclusion of o-A. 36 G. from SUR. 14; and then decided that this question should be investigated afresh and remanded the mattei. The effect of the order of the Fi ibunal was the inclusion of S. No. 123 and inclusion of acquired land in 141. All this was done wiihout the State preferring an appeal or cross-objection. This order dt. 7-12-76 is challenged here.