GANESHLAL RADHAKISHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the land holder. The proceedings are under the Ceiling Act. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms,District Osmanabad, as the Ceiling Authority declared that the petitioner is entitled to hold 108 acres, and an area of 44 acres and 22 gunthas was delimited as surplus. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has dismissed the same.

(2.) The dispute raised in these proceedings before the two authorities and also before me is about survey No. 12 admeasuring 13 acres and 11 gunthas an survey No. 35 admeasuring 30acres and 30 gunthas According to the petitioner these lands were agreed to be sold to the vendees in the year 1955. On the basis of an agreement of sale of 1955 the vendees were put in possession of the lands. However sale deeds were not executed till a later date. Sale-deed in respect of survey No. 35, was executed on 12-7-1955. In fact the sale-deed in respect of survey No. 12 was executed on 14-12-1966. In fact the sale-deed in respect of survey No. 12 is produced, and the sale transaction in respect of survey No. 35 is proved by production of revenue extracts and the affidavit of the vendee.

(3.) Both the authorities have not considered these transactions as binding on the State while making the necessary declaration under the Ceiling Act. The Deputy Collector was the view that the land holder was still in constructive possession of the lands and the sale transactions were in contravention of the Hydrabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. The Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, how ever, has given different reasons. The fact that these survey numbers were agreed to be sold in the year 1955 is not disputed. The fact that the vendees were put in possession under the agreement of sale is also not disputed. But the learned Member says that the possession of the vendees under the agreement of sale could not be as of an owner. It is stated that under section 54 of the Transfer of property Act, agreement of sale by itself would not create any title in favour of the vendee.