(1.) BY this petition the petitioner, who is the landlord of respondent No. 1. challenges the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated October 31. 1967, dismissing his appeal under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 on the ground that, in calculating the holdings of respondent No. 1. the Deputy Collector had wrongly excluded the lands belonging to the petitioner from the said holding and this ground was not allowed to be agitated in appeal before the Revenue Tribunal.
(2.) BY his order dated June 29, 1967, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Ceiling ). G. S. Mills No. 1. Kopargaon, excluded S. Nos. 306/1, 30306/2 and 305/3 belonging to the petitioner on the ground that these lands ceased to be in actual possession of respondent No. 1 under a decree for partition passed in favour of his son observing as follows:
(3.) NOW, there can be no doubt that the petitioner who appeared in answer to the public and private notice served on him under Section 17 could contend that in spite of the decree the lands were lawfully and actually in possession of the petitioner and the petitioner was the holder of the said lands. What the Deputy Collector had to ascertain was the holder of respondent No. 1, under Section 12. The words '"to hold land" are defined under Section 2 (14) as meaning "with it s grammatical variations and cognate expression, means to be lawfully in actual possession of land as owner or as tenant. " If the respondent No. 1 was in actual possession of the lands lawfully with the permission of the owner, in spite of the decree, the lands owner, in spite of the decree, the lands had to be included in the holdings of respondent No. 1. the petitioner had a right of appeal under Section 33 (1) (2),in which he could challenge the declaration made under Section 21 by the Deputy Collector on the ground that the declaration was made illegally excluding the lands which were in actual lawful possession of respondent No. 1. It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how the Revenue Tribunal could dismiss the appeal of the petitioner observing as, follows: