PARVATIBAI FULCHANDJI JAISWAL Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is writ petition on behalf of the original landholder Fulchand Jaiswal. The said landholder is now dead and is being represented by his legal representatives.

(2.) The original landholder filed a return under section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Ceiling Act"). He showed the total holdings of his family to be 58.54 acres. By order dated 11-1-1977 the proceedings were concluded by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal who observed that certain lands were not shown by Fulchand in his return and ultimately it came to be decided that the total holding of Fulchand was 119.88 acres out of which 2.17 acres were excluded as Potkharab area. After allowing the limit of 54.00 acres of land to be retained, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal declared 63.71 acres as surplus land. An appeal was filed against this decision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 5-7-1977 set aside the order on the ground that the notices were not issued to the proper parties who should have in fact been noticed. It also observed that all the persons interested in all the lands were not noticed or heard. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also held that there was no proper publication of the notices in villages and, therefore, a practically de novo enquiry was ordered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The last three lines of the Tribunal's order are telling: "It will further be seen that all the persons interested in the said lands are served with notices under section 17 directing them to file their submissions before it allowing them to lead evidence oral as well as documentary and then pass fresh order according to law. All the points in appeal are kept open." Accordingly, the matter went back. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal it seems, issued the notices and posted the case by a fresh order dated 30-6-1987 by which again 63.71 acres were declared to be the surplus land. The landholder approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by way of an appeal and mainly contended that no opportunity was given to him for leading the evidence though his witnesses were present and thus the previous order of remand passed by the Maharashtra Revenue, Tribunal was flouted in spirit. The landholder also pointed out that in fact he wanted to lead the evidence to show that the transfers which he had effected of the lands between the years 1972 and 1975 were for the genuine reasons, i.e. his financial stringency on account of his bad health and were not in fact to avoid the provisions of the Ceiling Act. The landholder contended that in fact he was a patient of Diabetes and High Blood Pressure and on account of that he had to spend substantial amounts and in order to meet these expenses he had transferred the lands and not to avoid the incoming provisions of the Ceiling Act. The next point urged by the landholder before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was that the land to the extent of 36.44 acres was acquired by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. He pointed out that 27.30 acres out of the acquired land was thereafter leased out to the petitioner in the year 1975 and that was with retrospective effect, that is to say the lease was to operate from 1969 to 1999. His contention is that, therefore, he was in possession of the land which came in the category of the exempted land. He, therefore contended that the land to that extent could not be included in his ceiling area. By way of the third point, the landholder urged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal had not given him any opportunity to prove the extent of uncultivable or potkharab land. On all the three questions, the appeal of the landholder was turned down by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal necessitating the present writ petition before this Court.

(3.) As regards the first question of the opportunity, I have gone through the records. Shri S.R. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, drew my attention to the order-sheets of the enquiry. It seems from those order-sheets that on 17-7-1976 the representative of the landholder was asked to file the list of witnesses of the interested persons and he had filed that list on 23-9-1986. The matter was thereafter put on 30-10-1986 but probably was never taken up till January, 1987 when the notices were ordered to be issued to the landholder. Then again on 12-2-1987 the representative of the landholder was present and notices were given to produce the original documents. On 3 occasions thereafter, i.e. on 9-3-1987, 23-3-1987 the Presiding Officer of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal was absent though the landholder was present. There then reads an order sheet dated 20-5-1987 that the case was received from S.D.O., Nagpur and that it was submitted to him for scrutiny and then the case was fixed for consideration and order and the order seems to have been passed on 29-6-1987 on which the order-sheet reads: "Order ready. Landlord be noticed". What one fails to see is that as to when the opportunity was given to the landholder to lead evidence as was the import of the previous order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. There is no endorsement whatsoever in the whole record on behalf of the landholder that he was not prepared to lead any evidence or that he was not prepared to take part into the enquiry. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in its first order had categorically observed that the proper parties were never noticed and there was no opportunity to the landholder to lead evidence, etc. In that view of the matter, it had already directed that the opportunity should be given to the parties to lead evidence and to present their case. From the record at least this does not seem to be the position. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has considered this aspect in paragraph 4 of its order. The learned Member it seems was satisfied from the fact that the notices under section 17 appear to have been dispatched from the record. This is how the learned Member treats the matter.