SHANKAR BABARAO DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my Opinion, this is a hoplessly misconceived petition. The bald narration of the facts whicl I now proceed to make will show the same. One Noor Raja had filed a suit, being ClS.No.4/68, for possession of several lands, faith the details of which we are not concerned. That suit was decreed and Noor Raja had been awarded 4 lands, namely s.Nos. 4l5, 100A & 100E totally measuring 60-A & 3-G. Resp. 4 was a party to that suit and preferred an appeal, being F. A.-78 of 1969.

(2.) Before that, proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Atit, after its amendment in October 1975, were taken up and the resp. 4 was held to be a surplus holder to the extent of 42-A & 6-G Since the order passed by the Surplus Land Determination Triburial(SLDT affected several persons, they preferrd 3 writ petitions to this Court, being Spl. C- As. 4294, 4296 & 4844 of 1976. It has been mentioned that Mr. Vaidya ]. disposed of all of them and directed that if as a result of the decision in F.A] 578/69 preferred by resp- 4 there is re-distribution of the holdings among the parties the same shall be taken into consideration by the S.L.D.T. The appeal was decided on 25-5l|8 and there was a compromise and 16-A $ l-G. of the land were allowed to remain with Noor Raja and the other lands came to the share of Nanasaheb, father of the resp. 4.

(3.) Thereafter the S.L.D.T. resumed the proceedings and by its order dt. 30-8-79, it gave credit for 16-A. & l-G of che land which were taken away from the share of resp. 4 & accordingly re-fixed his total holding. Since by earlier order, against which the petitioner had not preferred any appeal, surplus holding had been fixed at 42.A. and 6G., the snrplus thus would become reduced to 26.A. & 5.G. as the result of the exclusion of 16-A. & l-G- which have been given to Noor Raja. This is in effect the order passed by the S.L.D.T. on -0-8-1979. For the first time the petitioners pereferred an appeal heing Appeal No. 387/A/79-B, to the M.R,T. The resp 4, i e. the son of Nanasaheb also preferred an appeal, Appeal No. 380/A/19.B to the M.R-T. Both these appeals wete heard & dismissed by M R.T, at Aurangabad by its judgment and order dt. 18-12-80. It is this order which is challenged in this petition. A. Mr. Dhorde for the petitioners invited my attention to the geneology which has been mentioned in para 4 of the petition and pointed out that petitioners are members of a joint family. According to them, s. Nos. 5 & 100 have come to their share in a partition which has taken place in 78. Accordingly there prayer is to exclude these 2 s, Nos. from the holding of rep. 4 or his father and while delimiting the surplus area in the possession of resp. 4 the said land should net be taken away by the State, but should have been granted to them. 5. I have already prefaced my judgment with the remark that this is hopelessly misconceived petition. It is misconceived for the reason that the original order passed by S.L.D.T. on 3-7-76 is not challenged by the petitioners. If they were members of the joint family then they could have taken appropriate contentions to the same effect and asked the S.L.D.T. to give the legal effect to their status as members of joint family. They did not do so. Today they can much less contend that the lands which heve to come their share in 1978 long after the amended Ceiling Act came into force (2-10-75), soould not have been included in total holding of resp.