JAYARAM KRISHNAJI GAYAKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings arise out of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as "the Ceiling Act"). One Jayaram Krishnaji Gayakwad filed a return under section 12 of the Ceiling Act contending, inter alia, that there was a family petition on March 20, 1957 amongst the members of the joint family consisting of himself and his major four sons. In the said partition Jayaram Krishnaji Gayakwad was allotted 46 acres 39 gunthas of the land. The said partition is not disputed in this proceeding. Jayarams wife Laxmibais was allotted 4 acres 7 gunthas and she also acquired on area of 2 acres and 3 gunthas as her Stridhan. Therefore, her total holdings comes to 6 acres and 10 gunthas or so. The land held by Laxmibai the wife of Jayaram under the law can be calculated together and the total holdings thus comes 53 acres and odd gunthas. Jayaram died after filing the return and his heirs have filed several proceedings. Jayarams family consists of himself and his wife. Other members in the family are major. The daughters of Jayaram are married daughters and, therefore, they do not become the family members of the deceased Jayaram. The petitioners further case is that an area of 15 acres and 20 gunthas of land had been gifted to widowed daughter Saritadevi and Vasantrao the eldest son who retired from his Government service to the extent of 13 acres and 20 gunthas. There is a Mutation Entry No. 9234 dated 28th March, 1972. On the basis of the transfer made by the deceased Jayaram it was contended that he was not a surplus holder within the meaning of the Ceiling Act and his holding was less than 54 acres.

(2.) The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. (hereinafter referred to as "the SLDT") by its judgment dated 29-11-1976 held that all the total holdings of the petitioner Jayaram were of dry crops and the transfer of such lands in favour of sons and daughters was bona fide and not anticipatory of the Ceiling Act intending to defeat the provisions of the said Act.

(3.) The learned Divisional Commissioner having perused the record issued a show cause notice dated December 2, 1976 as to why the lands held by the deceased should not be considered to be the lands within the irrigable command. The show cause notice also indicated that the transfer effected in favour of the son and daughter of the deceased Jayaram was anticipatory of the Ceiling Act and, therefore, the said transfers were invalid. The learned Divisional Commissioner by his judgment and order dated December 17, 1976 held that the lands held by Jayaram were within the irrigable command and, therefore, the lands fell within the meaning of section 2(5) (b)(iii) of the Ceiling Act. It is further held by the Divisional Commissioner that the transfers by way of mutation entry in favour of the son and daughter were illegal and cannot be considered as transfer in view of the provisions of section 10 of the Ceiling Act. The said judgment and order of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bombay are challenged in this petition under Article 226 o of the Constitution of India.