STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ANJANABAI SHANKARRAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition takes an exception to the common order dated 27. 2. 1989 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M. R. T.) in two appeals, i. e. ALC. A. 3 of 1989 and ALC. A. 22 of 1989. whereby the order passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (S. L. D. T.) was modified in arriving at the conclusion as to what was the land declared to be surplus held by family unit of Shankarrao Narayan Deshmukh.

(3.) RELEVANT facts are as under : one Shankarrao Narayan Deshmukh, the husband of Anjanabai, respondent No. 1. son-Prataprao, respondent No. 2 and daughter-Ratnabai, respondent No. 3 owned agricultural land. Shankarrao died during the pendency of the proceedings, and therefore, his legal heirs were brought on record. The suo motu proceedings were initiated by the S. L. D. T. in the year 1988. Deceased Shankarrao did not file return as is required under s. 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, the Ceiling Act ). The S. L. D. T. passed the order in 1988 declaring land surplus. The legal heirs as well as the aggrieved person i. e. respondent No. 4 Arvind Kadam had preferred appeal before the M. R. T. which came to be decided on 18. 7. 1988. The M. R. T. allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the S. L. D. T. for fresh enquiry. Thereafter the S. L. D. T. held enquiry and by the order dated 31. 12. 1988 declared the surplus land i. e. to the extent of 102. 09 acres. The land bearing Survey No. 49 admeasuring 18. 31 acres is owned by respondent No. 4 Arvind and it is situated at village pimpalgaon. This land was found to have been in cultivation of the original land holder Shankarrao, and therefore, the S. L. D. T. completed necessary formalities and ultimately by the order dated 31. 12. 1988, held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had surplus land to the extent of 102. 09 acres. Being aggrieved by this order, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 carried appeal to the m. R. T. bearing Appeal No. ALC. A. 3 of 1989. So also the respondent No. 4 had carried appeal to the M. R. T. which was numbered as ALC. A. 22 of 1989. Both these appeals were heard together on merits by the M. R. T. and ultimately decided both the appeals by common order dated 27. 2. 1989. The M. R. T. reversed the finding of the S. L. D. T. and came to the conclusion that the land admeasuring 18. 31 acres owned by respondent No. 4 Arvind kadam would not be liable to be included while determining the surplus land and consequently allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4. However, the learned Member of the M. R. T. partly allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and held that Prataprao is the son of Shankarrao, and therefore, the holdings of Shankarrao were to be partitioned notionally and accordingly had effected notional partition and the M. R. T. recorded findings that the land admeasuring 46. 72 acres is liable to be excluded while determining the surplus and. These findings are challenged in this writ petition.