BHAGWANDAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heart of the question is whether in determining the extent of the total holdings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), the consideration of the requirement of making provision for the expenses for marriage and/or maintenance of unmarried major daughter in a general partition in a Hindu family has any place.

(2.) Petitioner 1 Bhagwandas Heda's Joint family consists of his wife Smt. Kamlabai (petitioner 2). three minor sons: Amritlal (petitioner 3), Tarachand (petitioner 4) and HemantKumar, two minor unmarried daughter : Premalatha and Hemalata and a major unmarried daughter Kiran. Bhagwandas as the held of the family filed a return of total holdings as required under Section 12 of the Act. On making enquiry, the SLDT found 34.24 acres as surplus. In appeal the MRT maintained this order. Being aggrieved, the present petition under Article 226 of the constitution has been filed.

(3.) Two points were originally raised in this petition. One relates to the extent of Pot-kharab land. According to the petitioner. 9.30 acres (and not merely 4019 acres as held by the Authorities) is the extent of Pot-kharab land. The areas covered by drainage work. embankment, etc. which are maintained for the purposes of agriculture were not excluded by the Authorities as they fall within the definition of the term "land" under Section 2 (16) of the Act. It seems to me that the finding recorded is correct. My attention was invited to the statement of patwari examined on behalf of the State to the effect that one Nala exists in field survey 2/1 of mouza Esapur. It is contended that at least the area of the Nala should have been excluded. There is no material on record about the nature and extent of the Nala. Even in the writ petition these details are missing. Hence this contention also cannot be accepted. The other point relates to the difference of two acres out of this very field initially measuring 15.21 acres. Area of 10 acres out of this was sold in the year 1971 to Abdul Rahim (respondent 3). The authorities did not accept the case that though in the sale deed only 10 acres is mentioned, the purchaser wrongly took possession of 12 acres. No valid reason is demonstrated before me to take a different view of the matter. Crop statement for the year 1970-71 (the correctness of which was not disputed in appeal) and the statement made by petitioner 1 indicates his physical possession over 5.21 acres. It is true that crop-statements for subsequent years and the oral testimony of the purchaser does indicate his physical possession over 12 acres. But that evidence has not been accepted. The finding is thus based on appreciation of evidence.