MANIKRAO SHESHRAO DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is filed impugning the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 10-1-1995 in writ Petition No. 2070/91 under which it upheld the impugned order dated 29-6-1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, amravati Division, Amravati in Ceiling revision No. 2/60-A- (5)/86-87 under which the additional Commissioner in exercise of its revisional powers had set aside the order dated 29-10-1984 passed by the Surplus Lands determination Tribunal, Akot (for short 'slot') in Revenue Case No. ICH-17-18/ mundgaon-8/76-77 and declared 21 Acres, 11 gunthas of land as surplus land in addition to surplus land declared by SLDT.

(2.) THE appellant and his family held agricultural land as given in the table below :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_130_ALLMR2_2006Html1.htm</FRM> The appellant was required to file return for the land held by him after coming into force of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961 as amended in the year 1975 and from time to time (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act") before the competent Authority, i. e. SLDT, Akot which came to be registered as Revenue Case no. ICH-17-18/mundgaon-8/76-77. The SLDT after examining the case of the appellant found that the appellant and his family unit is entitled to keep 64, acres 32 gunthas of land and declared 9 acres, 9 gunthas in excess of ceiling area and ordered the same to be deleted from survey No. 34 situated at village Mundgaon. This order passed by the SLDT came to be examined by the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 45 (2) of the Ceiling Act by initiating suo motu revisional proceedings and by his order dated 29-6-1991 modified the order passed by the sldt and held that the contention of the appellant which has been accepted by the sldt that in so far as field survey no. 26/2 area 5 acres, 29 gunthas and survey no. 27/1 area 11, acres 20 gunthas was sold to one damodharadas Khanulalji Rathi for a consideration of Rs. 7500/- by the landholder on 4-10-1971 could not have been excluded from being taken into consideration for determining the ceiling area as provided under section 10 (1) of the amended Ceiling Act and further found that the SLDT has committed an error of accepting the report of agricultural expert for calculation of Pot Kharab land admeasuring 8, acres 36 gunthas in spite of the fact that the said report is not duly proved and on perusal of record of rights and crop statement, area of land under the said category is as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_130_ALLMR2_2006Html2.htm</FRM> and, therefore, held that the total area of Pot kharab land to be excluded comes to 5 acres and 4 gunthas, out of the total holding and, therefore, modified the order passed by the sldt on 29-10-1984 and declared additional surplus land as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_130_ALLMR2_2006Html3.htm</FRM> This was challenged by the appellant by filing a Writ Petition in this Court. The learned Single judge upheld the findings of the Additional commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati which is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the decision of the additional Commissioner as well as that of the learned Single judge mainly on two grounds, firstly that the Additional Commissioner erred in not excluding agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 26/2 and 27/1 of village Aminapur which were not in possession of the landholder and came to be sold to Damodhardas Rathi and secondly, that the Additional Commissioner ignored the report of the agricultural expert in determining the Pot Kharab land. It was also contended that the Additional Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in examining these two issues in exercise of his revisional powers under Section 45 of the Ceiling Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge merely confirmed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his revisional powers without examining the facts of the case.