KESHAO GOVIND BEGDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a landlord residing at village Chimur. He filed a return on September 12, 1962. under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings ) Act . 1961 (hereinafter called the ceiling Act) That return was sent by the Collector to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Warora, for an enquiry according to the provisions of the Ceiling Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer registered the case as Revenue Case No. 32/60-A (3) /63-64 . In the return the petitioner had mentioned that he was in possession of lands to the extent of 110.02 acres. The Sub-Divisional Officer issued a notice under Section 17 , made an enquiry and passed an order on April 4, 1965. whereby he held that the petitioner was holding lands to the extent of 437.01 acres. Against that order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The tribunal by its order dated June 28, 1986 set aside the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer and remanded the case for further enquiry. The Tribunal also by its order granted an opportunity to the petitioner to lead further evidence. After the remands, a fresh enquiry was made on the basis of the earlier notice under Section 17. The Sub-Divisional Officer then passed an order on March 31,1970 whereby he held that the petitioner was in possession of 337.81 acres of land. By allowing the petitioner to retain 108 acres permissible under the Ceiling Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer declared that 229.81 acres of land was surplus. It may be stated that in this enquiry before the Sub-Divisional Officer, a number of transactions made by the petitioners in favour of the present respondents 2 to 38 were being challenged as being contrary to Section 8 and 10 of the Ceiling Act. Notices had been issued to these respondents and they had appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer dated March. 31, 1970 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Some of the alienees of the petitioner also filed appeals. All these appeals were heard together and a common order was passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on February 1, 1972. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and excluded an area of 24.24 acres from the holding of the petitioner's holding was 312.57 acres and directed that the surplus land of the petitioner was 204.57 acres. It further directed that this surplus of 204,57 acres should be given to the State by taking 110.02 acres which was in the actual possession of the petitioner and 94.53 acres to be taken from the possession of the transferees of the petitioner. The present petition has been filed to challenge this order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

(2.) The petitioner has made a number of sale transactions in favour of respondents 2 to 38. All these transactions are between the period. December 28, 1959 to December 22, 1961. They are admittedly made after August 4, 1959. These transactions are prima facie hit by Section 10 of the Ceiling Act. Section 10 of the Ceiling Act provides thus:

(3.) Mr. Masodkar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has strenuously argued that under Section 10, there is only a presumption that the lands transferred are for the purposes of avoiding or defeating the provisions of the Ceiling Act. He submits that if the holder establishes that the transfers were not made to avoid or defeat the provisions of the ceiling act, or that they were not in anticipation of the Ceiling Act, then even if the transfers are between August 4, 1959 and January 26,1962 those transfers will have to be excluded from the holdings of the petitioner . It is true that Section 10 only raises a statutory presumption. It may be possible in given cases to lead evidence to show that those transfers were not in anticipation of or to avoid or defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act. But it is clear that the burden to establish it clearly lies on the holder and it is for the holder to establish it to the contrary. Whether the holder has satisfactorily established or not is a question of fact. In the present case, both the authorities have considered the evidence in respect of each transfer. Notices were issued to the transferees and the transferees also gave their statements. The transferees were also vitally interested and were protecting their rights and both the petitioner and the transferees led evidence oral as well as documentary. That entire evidence was considered and both the Courts found that these transfers were void under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act. The findings are that the petitioner failed to establish that these transfers were not in anticipation of or to avoid or to defeat the provisions of the Act. Such a finding is a pure finding of fact and will be binding on me in this writ petition. In fact it appears to me that on merits each transfer has been separately dealt with by the lower authorities in great details and the entire evidence connected with each transfer has been minutely taken care of. These findings, therefore, have to be accepted. Accordingly, it will follow that in calculating the holding of the petitioner, the lands so transferred will have to be taken into account.