VISHNU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under article 227 of Constitution of India. The challenge in this petition is to order passed by maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as "mrt" for short)in Appeal No. 147/a/87 Beed. By the orders impugned in this petition it is held the petitioners are surplus holders to the extent of 553-19 acres. The surplus is from the holding of petitioners i. e. lands situate at Ambejogai. The proceedings are under Maharashtra agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short ).

(2.) IT is not disputed that this Act prescribes a limit on agricultural holdings of land holders. It is also not disputed that determination of surplus is contemplated therein. That determination is based upon returns filed by landlords in prescribed form to the competent authority. It is further not disputed that the orders passed by the competent authorities are subject matter of appeal u/s 33 of the said Act. However, in the present case, the controversy is whether the petitioners are liable to be declared as surplus landholders at all. In their submission, if the holding of petitioners is within the ceiling limit, then neither are they required to abide by provisions of this Act nor file any returns thereunder. If there is no obligation to comply with the provisions of the Act, then the tribunal as well as competent authority were in obvious error in directing that petitioners are surplus landholders and portion of their lands be delimited as surplus for being dealt with by the authorities exercising powers under the Act.

(3.) PETITIONERS submit that they are entitled to contend that there is no surplus land holding as far as they are concerned because the Act postulates several exclusions and exemptions from the total holding i. e. ceiling limit prescribed. The holdings of petitioners have been erroneously clubbed with each other and that also with parties with whom it cannot be said that they are in close relation. That apart, it is contended that the authorities namely the competent authority as well as the tribunal fell in obvious error while holding that the petitioners possessed the said land on the relevant date. For appreciating these contentions of petitioners, reference to few facts is necessary.