LAXMINARAYAN PATHAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short "the Ceiling Act"). The S.L.D.T. held that the family unit of the petitioners held 28.06 acres of land as surplus land. The total holding of the petitioners is 85.28 acres. The pot kharab land belonging to the family unit of the petitioners was determined as 4 acres 02 gunthas. Being aggrieved the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The State also preferred its cross objection. The learned M.R.T. held that the total pot kharab land belonging to the family unit of the petitioners was 10 acres 4 gunthas and not 4 acres 02 gunthas as determined by the S.L.D.T. The M.R.T., therefore, accordingly modified the surplus land belonging to the petitioners. It held that the surplus land belonging to the petitioners would be 22 acres and 18 gunthas. There was also modification in regard to the delimitation of surplus land. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.

(2.) The only argument urged on merits is in regard to the pot kharab land. It is urged that the learned M.R.T. erred in relying upon the crop statement for the year 1975-76, in regard to the Field Survey numbers in question referred to by it when there were discrepancies in the crop statements for the year 1975-76 and the earlier years. So far as this question is concerned, it relates to the appreciation of evidence on record. It is urged that the M.R.T. had not considered the evidence of the retired Talathi Shri Joshi led by the petitioner. A perusal of para 7 of the order of the M.R.T. shows that the M.R.T. has applied its mind to the evidence on record and has arrived at its own conclusions. Since the finding is based upon the material on record, it is not open to me to dusturb the same in my writ jurisdiction. The contention raised on merits in regard to pot kharab land is, therefore, rejected.

(3.) The next question raised on bahalf of the petitioners is about the validity of the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 2A of the Ceiling Act, Section 2-A deals with the constitution of a tribunal known as surplus land determination tribunal constituted for determining the ceiling area, the surplus land and for other purposes in the Ceiling Act. Section 2-A was inserted in the Act for the first time by the Maharashtra Act No.II of 1976. The said Act has received the assent of the President and is also included in the IXth Schedule of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, immune from any challenge on the ground of infringement of fundamental rights being protected by Article 31-B of the Constitution.