BABASAHEB M CHOWDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed u/Att. 226 of Constitution, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the judgment dated 24-3-1976 passed by the M. R. T., Autangabad under the Ceiling Act of 1961, with its Amending Act of 1975. The S. L. D. T. found that the petitioner was the holder of an area of 114-A. 25-G. and was declared as surplus holder tn the extent of 12-A. 6-G. In appeal to the M. R. T., suiplus was reduced to S-A. 34G. and this order is challenged.

(2.) Shii Binavade, for the petitioner, submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not giving relief to the petitioner after holding that the entire land bearing SUR. No. 381 of 30-A. 1-G. was in occupation of the tenants. The submission is correct. In the return filed by the petitioner, S. No. 381 was not included in his holding; but the S, L. D. T. on inquiry found that out of the area of 30-A. 1-G. of the said land, the tenant, Dharba Mukinda was declared as the purchaser u/s. 38G of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, only to the extent of 15-A. 37-G. and the remainder of 14-A. 3-G. is liable to be included in the holding of the petitioner. In appeal, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the enrire area of 30-A 1-G. of s. No. 381 is in occupation of the tenants and the area convered by s. No. 381 or any part of it could not be included in the holding of the petitioner. The S.L.D.T. has included 14-A. 3-G. out of of s. No. 331 in the holding of the petitioner and if that area was excluded, then there is no difficulty in holding that the petitioner could not be declared as a surplus holder. The Tribunal after recording a finding that the entire area of s. No. 381 is in possession of the tenant, curiously observes :

(3.) Shri. Deshmukb, the Govt. Pleader, very fairly stated that though the petitioner had not included this land in his return the S. L. D. T. on inquiry has found that 14-A. 3-G. out of this land is in possession of the petitioner and that portion is included in the holding of the petitioner; that the Revenue Tribunal was in error in holding that the entire area is in possession of the tenant. It is not permissible for Shri. Deshmukh to agitate this contention as the Revenue Tribunal has recorded a finding, after perusal of the relevant material on record, that the entire area is in occupation of the tenant. Shri. Deshmukh very fairly stated that if this area of 14-A. 3-G. is to be excluded from the holding of the petitioner then the petitioner cannot be declared as the surplus holder.