VIJAY ANANDROO KSHIRSAGAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second Appeal is confined to the determination of one single provision of The Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976. The appellant, who is a holder of certain agricultural lands in Satara District in Koregaon Taluka has challenged the acquisition of an area of 5 acres and 2 Gunthas, after the application of emergency clause. He filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, being Civil Suit No. 84 of 1979, whereby he contended that the acquisition was bad-in-law because his individual holding was less than the prescribed minimum of 8 acres under the Resettlement Act by virtue of a partition that had taken place on 1-12-1968. The Court rejected this plea and held that the computation of the joint family holding of 29 acres and 30 gunthas was treated as a unit for acquisition and that therefore, the amount of land that has been acquired out of this holding was correct. The matter was carried in appeal and the Appellate Court confirmed the decision of the trial Court. The appellant thereafter filed the present Second Appeal and my brother Desai, J. , while admitting the appeal observed that the substantial point of law canvassed namely the question as to whether the expression "person" as appearing in section 2 (10) of the Resettlement Act is to be construed as including the expression "family" for the purposes of this Act, had to be decided.

(2.) MR. Anturkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded before me that he does not desire to re-agitate the factual aspect with regard to the evidence in relation to the family partition of 1-12-1968 which has been rejected by both the trial courts and the Appeal Court. Those decisions proceed on the basis of evaluation of evidence and in the light of the concurrent findings it would be impermissible to reopen that issue. Mr. Anturkar, has however presented a strong challenge based purely on a point of law whereby he contends that the authorities were wrong in construing the expression" person" as being inclusive of the term "family" or to be more precise "hindu undivided family".

(3.) IT is necessary for me to recount the line of argument that has been canvassed. Mr. Anturkar submits that the Resettlement Act was promulgated for the purpose of acquiring from the larger holdings some amount of land for the purposes of resettling the persons from the affected zone. The rationale behind this which has been upheld by this Court is that since agriculturists in the benefited zone would get immense benefit by virtue of the irrigation project in question that they should offset a part of this benefit by parting with some of their excess holdings which were necessary to resettle persons from the affected zone, whose lands were in fact submerged in order to make the project operational and provide the benefits for the others. After much consideration, it was considered that those persons holding over 9 acres of land in the benefited zone should part with a proportionate part of the excess. Having regard to the situation that obtains in this country, particularly in relation to agricultural holdings, Mr. Anturkar submitted that the property is invariably ancestral and that the holdings proceeds on the basis of Hindu Undivided Family. This would necessarily imply that the record would show the eldest male member as the Karta. Mr. Anturkar states that in actual fact the Karta is no more than the Administrator of the property or the trustee who holds it on behalf of the whole family. The co-partners for instance, do have legally defined shares and interests in that property regardless of the paper projection that it technically stands in the name of the Karta.