PARASHRAM UDHAO PUNWATKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioners challenge the order dated 17-7-1984 passed by the Collector, Yavatmal, cancelling allotment of surplus land in their favour by Government under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'ceiling Act'), on the ground that both of them are not landless persons. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in revision under Section 45-A (3) of Ceiling act, before the Additional Commissioner, amravati, and the Additional Commissioner on 7-12-1991 has upheld the findings recorded by the Collector. Both these orders have been challenged on the ground that the petitioners are landless persons. This Court has admitted writ petition on 3-1-1992 and has protected the possession of the petitioners.

(2.) HEARD Ms. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners. She contends that insofar as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the perusal of impugned order will show that the authorities below have found that his father owns some land and therefore, the petitioner has got share in land and further that Talathi has given a report that petitioner No. 1 is cultivating 6. 28 acre land at Village- Antargaon. In relation to petitioner No. 2 she points out that the said petitioner is held to be not a landless person only because he is cultivating land owned by his grand mother. By inviting attention to section 2 (17) of the Ceiling Act, she states that relevant factor i. e. ownership of land in excess of 1 Hectare as contemplated by these provisions has been totally overlooked by these authorities and thus, there is failure to exercise jurisdiction.

(3.) AS against this, Mrs. Jog, learned assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondent No. 1 states that the authorities have called for report from Patwari and after perusal of that report, they have found that apart from land allotted to them as landless persons under the provisions of Ceiling Act, they are cultivating some other lands. She contends that petitioner No. 1 being son of his father is entitled to share in the property of father ard therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer has correctly said that he is not a landless labourer. In relation to petitioner No. 2, she points out that both the authorities have found that grand mother of petitioner No. 2 was given 3 acres of land earlier and though grant mother is alive, said petitioner is cultivating the land of grand mother on the ground that she is old. She contends that therefore, he cannot be considered as landless person.