BIHARILAL RAMPRASAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions arise out of the common judgment delivered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in three land ceiling appeals filed before him and that is why they are heard together and disposed of by common judgment. They arise out of the following facts :---

(2.) Biharilal is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1901 of 1981. His son Radheshyam and his wife Basantabai are the petitioners in the other writ petition. There was an oral partition amongst these 3 members of the joint family some time in 1954. Thereafter Radheshyam filed Suit No. 185/1 of 1955 in confirmation of this partition and for grant of patta in his name. A similar Suit No. 187/1 of 1955 was filed by Basantabai. Both these suits ended in consent decrees on 8th February, 1955. An application in pursuance of these partition decrees was made to the Deputy Collector, Parbhani for effecting entries in the revenue records accordingly. On 6th May, 1955 the Deputy Collector passed an order directing the Tahsildar to make necessary entries after making enquiry. The two orders are Nos. 67/65-56 and 68/55-56. However, the matter was delayed in the office of the Tahsildar. On 12-6-1957 the Tahsildar gave a direction to the Village officers to effect entries in pursuance of the partition decrees. However, the village officers took their own time and did not make such entries till 1961. For the first time the village officers made separate entries in 1961-62.

(3.) Now the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act) came into force on 26th January, 1962. Notice was issued to Biharilal who filed his return on 1-11-1962 under the old Ceiling Act. In the return he has shown 4 lands belonging to him namely. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_379_BCR1_1984Html1.htm</FRM> Notices were issued under section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Ceiling Act. On 1-9-1971 the Deputy Collector held that the return filed by Biharilal was not correct and so he imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- on Biharilal and directed him to file a fresh return. The main ground on which he proceeded to pass this order was that he did not recognise the partition.