LAXMIBAI RAMRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the communication-cum-order dated 29-7-1977 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad informing the petitioner that as the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal which was confirmed in appeal, the revision application was not tenable under Section 45 (2) of the said Act.

(2.) DECEASED petitioner - Laxmibai Ramrao had filed a Return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961" ). She had shown her total acreage of holdings as 78 acres 07 gunthas. As regards land Sy. No. 47 admeasuring 27 acres 17 gunthas, it was stated that respondent No. 4. Trimbakrao Govindrao, was tenant from the year 1969 and was in possession of the said land. The issue was taken up by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal under Section 21 of the Act of 1961 and by an order dated 21st February, 1976 it was declared that the petitioner was surplus landholder to the extent of 24 acres 7 gunthas. The claim of the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 Trimbakrao was a tenant of the land in Survey No. 47 was rejected by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE deceased petitioner, who is now represented by her legal heirs, filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 26-7-1976 against an order passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal under Section 21 of the Act of 1961 on 21-2-1976 in Case No. 116/1975. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad purporting to be under Sections 14 and 21 of the Act of 1961. The record and proceedings was called by this Court and the copy of the appeal memo is part of the said record. I have perused the same. It is filed on 24th September, 1976. The said appeal was preferred after the petitioner approached the Revisional Authority. In the appeal, the petitioner prayed as follows: