NARAYAN GOVIND PARICHARAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARING of both these writ petitions was deferred in view of the order dated 6-12-2000, as question involved in one of the petitions relating to the review jurisdiction of the M. R. T. was stated to be pending before the larger Bench of this Court. Mr. Dani appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1422 of 1987 submits that though that question was raised in his petition, he is not pressing that point. He submits that if that question is not pressed then both the writ petitions can be heard forthwith with regard to other issues. Accordingly, hearing of these writ petitions is proceeded forthwith, with regard to other questions, by consent.

(2.) BOTH these writ petitions can be disposed of together as it relate to the land situated at Shegaon, District Solapur, which was originally in the name of the predecessor of the Petitioners in the respective writ petitions, Shri Govind Balkrishna Paricharak. It is not in dispute that the said Govind Balkrishna Paricharak was in possession of the said lands and the same belonged to joint family of which he was a member. The said Govind Paricharak died on 21-5-1966 without filing any return under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Ceiling on Holdings Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to the said Act ). In the circumstances, the Authority initiated action under Section 13 of the said Act. It is not necessary to advert to the various proceedings, except to mention that the Mahrashtra Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 14-8-1979 held that the Petitioners in respective writ petitions to file fresh returns which will be decided in accordance with law. The Tribunal in the said order has accepted the fact that the Petitioner Satyabhamabai had half share in the suit land, whereas the Petitioners in the companion writ petition - Narayan and 2 others had 1/6th share each therein. It is on this premise the Petitioners were required to file fresh returns which was to be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Petitioners in respective writ petitions filed four separate returns and, the same were considered by the Assistant Collector, Pandharpur together. The Assistant Collector Pandharpur by order dated 14-4-1991 held that share of Petitioner Satyabhamabai in the suit lands was to the extent of 162 Acres 10 gunthas, whereas the remaining land admeasuring 162 Acres and 10 gunthas was to be equally divided between the Petitioners in the companion writ petition i. e. Narayan, Vijaya and Rukmini which would come to about 54 Acres and 33 gunthas each. In the circumstances the Assistant Collector found that the holding of the Petitioners in writ Petition No. 1423 of 1987 was less than the ceiling limits and therefore the proceedings as against them came to be dropped, whereas, in so far as Satyabhamabai - writ petitioners in writ Petition No. 1422 of 1987 is concerned, the Assistant Collector held that the holding of Satyabhamabai was in surplus to the extent of 54 Acres and 10 gunthas then the ceiling limit. It is not in dispute that the earlier order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal dated 14-8-1979 as well as the order passed by the Assistant Collector on fresh adjudication of the matter dated 14-4-1981, have become final in so far as Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1423 of 1987 - Narayan and 2 others are concerned. However, the Petitioners in writ petition No. 1422 of 1987, Satyabhamabai alone had to carry the matter in appeal, as authority declared her holding to be in excess of the ceiling limit. In that appeal, before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the said Petitioners challenged the declaration that she was holding surplus land essentially on the ground that calculation undertaken by the authority below was inappropriate. However, the Tribunal took the view that the entire action and the earlier orders which enured in favour of the Petitioners in writ petition No. 1423 of 1987, were not in accord with the enunciated of the Apex court in the case of Raghunath Laxman Wani v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1971 SC 2137. According to the Tribunal, what was required to be seen is the holding of the joint family of the deceased Govind B. Paricharak as on 26-1-1962. It is not in dispute that the said total holding of the said Govind B. Paricharak on that date was 387 Acres 3 gunthas or thereabout. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 24-3-1986, was pleased to allow the appeal preferred by the Petitioners in writ petition No. 1422 of 1987, but at the same time set aside the orders passed in Ceiling case No. 1 of 1971 dated 14-4-1981 and remanded the case back to the first authority to decide the ceiling area of deceased Govind B. Paricharak as on the appointed day on 26-1-1962 by issuing notices to all the heirs of deceased Govind B. Paricharak and give an opportunity to them in deciding the ceiling area. The said judgment is challenged by Narayan and 2 others in writ petition No. 1423 of 1987.

(3.) ACCORDING to them, the order passed by the Tribunal on 14-8-1979 has become final and it is pursuant to that order that they had filed fresh returns before the ceiling authority which was examined and the authority has found that their holding was less than the ceiling limit and that the said order passed by the ceiling authority dated 14-4-1981 has also become final. It is, therefore, contended that since those orders have become final in favour of the Petitioners in that writ petition, the Tribunal could not have set aside the order which was in their favour and more particularly when they are not even party to the proceedings before the Tribunal.