SUSHILBAI NAGESH CHANDORKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration before the Full Bench is whether under the provisions of Sections 19 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra Act No.27 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act" ) a landlord is entitled toresume for personal cultivation only half or whole of the surplus delimited land held from him by the personinto whose holding enquiry is being held under Section 18 of the Ceiling Act?

(2.) For the purposes of this case we propose to confine our attention only to the facts existing in Special Civil Application No.282 of 1968. Mahadeo Maruti Boravake, respondent No.2 is a tenant holding various pieces of land for agricultural cultivation. He is the aggregate held 157 acres and 27 gunthas. The lands held by him were of more than one class and the total area held by him when converted into a corresponding area of dry crop land under the provisions of the Ceiling Actadmeasured 301 acres and 281/2 gunthas. The Ceiling Act came into force on January 26, 1962. On July 14, 1962 the respondent No.2 submitted a return as required by the provisions of Section 12 of trhe Ceiling Act. After giving a public notice and individual notices as required to be given under Section 17 an enquiry was held by the Ceiling Authority, the District Deputy Collector sub-Division Sangamner. Having regard to the provisions of the Ceiling Act he held that respondent No.2 was entitled to hold an area of 108 acres of dry crop land and the rest of the lands held by him namely 193 cres and 281/2 gunthas of dry crop lands were surplus lands. These surplus lands were held by him from more thanm one landlord. Sushilabai Chandorkar, the petitioner owned out of these lands held by petitioner, owned out of these lands held by respondent No.2, three piecesof land bearing survey Nos. 142, 143 and 299 in all admeasuring 32 acres and 23 gunthas situate at Baramati, District Poona. After conversion into dry crop lands these lands owned by the petitioner became 3quivalent to dry crop lands admeasuring 89 acres and 12 gunthas. These lands were leased by the pettioner to respondent No. 2 for cultivation of sugar-cane. Pursuant to a notice give to the petitioner as required by the provisions of the Ceiling Act she appeared during the course of the enquiry and claimed that she was entitled to restroation of possessionof entire 32acres and 23gunthas (being equivalent of dry crop lands admeasuring 89 acres and 12 gunthas) as she required the same for personal cultivation. She was holding no other land. The Distrtict Depaty Collector an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and it was dismissed by an order dated April 17. 1967. Aggrieved by this order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal the petitioner has filed this Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that she is entitled to the entire 32 acres and 23 gunthas held by respondent No. 2 from her as tenant as they formed part of the surplus lands.

(3.) Mr. Sali, who appears on behalf of the petitioner in one of these Special Civil Applicatiosn contended that Section 19 of theCeiling Act confers an independent right of rsumptionin favour of a landlord; that a landlord under that sectionis entitled to restoration of possession if the conditiosn laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of htesaid section are fulfilled; that the expression "it appears" used in that sectionis wide enough to include that prima facie the landlord has a right of resumption for personal cultivationin respect of the surplus land or a part thereof under the relevant tenancy law applicabel to such land: that there is a non-obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in that tenancy law" appearing in the substantive provisions of the said section; that the effect of this non-obstante clause is plenary and unqualified and the limitatison imposed by the relevant tenancy law shoudl not be invoked for determinign the extent of area of surplus land that the landlord is entitled to resume that the right referred to in Section 19(b) of the Ceiling Act is a right simiplicter for resumption of land and not the right simpliciter for resumption of land and not the right circumcribed by the conditiosn imposed by the relevant tenancy law for its enforcement; that having regard to the scheme of the Ceilling Act and especially Section 19 thereof the petitioner as landlady is entitled to possession of all surplus pieces of land held by the tenant repondent No. 2 from her so long as her total holding after such restoration of possession does not exceed the ceiling area as prescribed by the Ceiling Act. The other counsel who appeared for the petitioner in the various Special Ci vil Applications have adopted this contention but Mr. Deshmukh on behalf of the petitioners in some of those Special Civil Applications made a submission in the alternative. he submitted that having regard to the scheme of hteCeiling Act and especially Sxection 19 thereof a landlord is entitled to possession of all surplus lands held from him by the tenant so long as his total holdings after such restorationof possession does not exceed the ceilling area as fixed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultrual Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. 67 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act").