KARUJI HARJI GUNJAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 30-9-1978 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, in exercise of his revisional powers under section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act).

(2.) The petitioner in the return filed by him under the Ceiling Act showed his total holding of agricultural lands as 20 hectares and 70 acres. Since his family consisted of himself, his wife, his minor son and minor daughter, his total holding according to him was below the ceiling of 21 hectates and 85 acres prescribed for a family unit under the Ceiling Act. He, therefore, claimed that there as no surplus land with him. The surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Sangamner, accepted this plea and by its order dated 25-3-1978 held that the petitioner was not a surplus land holder within the meaning of the Ceiling Act and dropped the further proceedings. The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, however re-opened the proceedings suo motu in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act and held that the order passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal was erroneous inasmuch as, among other things, lands together totalling 11 hectares and 97 acres were wrongly excluded by the Tribunal from the total holding of the petitioner on the ground that they were in the possession of five different tenants right from the year 1964-65 onwards. He held that for the first time on 13-10-75 these fives persons the alleged tenants had made an applications to the Tenancy Court under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) and in collusion with the petitioner landlord had obtained a declaration that they were the tenants of the different pieces of land from out of the said area of 11 hectares and 97 acres as follows :---

(3.) The only point that is canvassed before me on behalf of the petitioner is that the Additional Commissioner had committed an error of law in including the said area of 11 hectares and 97 acres in the total holding of the petitioner. Shri Savant, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a "solemn" declaration made by the Tenancy Authority under the Tenancy Act declaring the said five persons as the tenants in respect of the said area. The declaration shows that they have been declared as tenants right from the year 1964-65. Hence, argued Shri Savant, it could not be said that the transfers were made by the petitioner after 26-9-1970 and hit by the provisions of section 8 of the Ceiling Act. The second submission was that if in fact the petitioner was not in actual and factual possession of the said area on 2-10-1975, the same could not have been taken into consideration for calculating his total holding. For the first proposition he relied upon an unreported decision of the Single Judge of this Court in (Special Civil Application No. 1641 of 1976) decided on 6-8-1976. For the second proposition he referred me to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1973 Bombay 225 (The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., Bombay and others v. S. Ramamurthy and others) I am not impressed by either of those contentions for the following reasons :