LAWS(BOM)-1984-2-51

SHALIBAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 21, 1984
SHALIBAI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but subtle point involved in this writ petitions is about the valldity of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amending) Act, 1976, Maharashtra Act No. 26 of 1976 (for short the Amending Act"). Briefly, the facts are that the surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short s.L.D. T) by its order dated 23-3-1976 passed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short "the ceiling Act"), held that the total holding of the petitioners is 84.61 acres and since the petitioner is entitled to hold 54 acres of land, the S.L.D.T. declared 30.61 acres of land as surplus belonging to the petitioners. The surplus land was surrendered to the State Government , which took possession of the same after the period of appeal was over.

(2.) The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur division, Nagppur, acting under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, decided to revise the order of the S.L.D.T. in the ceiling case No. 389|60-A(5)|1975-76, village Idala, Tahsil Sakoli, referred to above. This decision was taken by the Additional commessioner by opening Ceiling Revision No. 2|60-A (5)|1977-78 of Idala, under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, and a summary sheet was accordingly drawn by him which is at Annexure B to the petition. A notice was issued by the Additional; Commissioner, Nagpur Division ,Nagpur to the petitioners to appear in the aforesaid revisional proceedings. After the said notice to appear in the proceedings initiated as per the summary sheet, referred to above, was issued, them petitioners has approached this Court by preferring the instant writ petition challenging the initiation of the aforesaid revisional proceedings against her under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, on the ground that the said revisional proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside and the Additional... the said revisional proceedings against her. The aforesaid relief is claimed by the petitioners on the ground, that the amending act which amends the Ceiling Act is void and unenforceable because it has not received the assent of the President of India for short "the President")

(3.) The submission of the learned counted for the petitioners is that the Amending Act enacts a law relating to acquisition and can be protected by the provisions of Article 31-a of the constitutuion if it is assented to by the President. In the absence of the assent by the President. IN the absence of the assent by the President to the Amending Act, it in rings the provisions of the then Article 31(3), of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the Amending Act is a law relating to acquisition within the meaning and of Article 31(2) of the Constitution and for its validity and enforeability the asssent of the President is necessary under Art. 31(3) of the constitution.