RAGHUNATH RAMCHANDRA CHABRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition challenging the order of the Commissioner under section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act).

(2.) The facts are undisputed. The only question that is raised is whether the Commissioner was correct in excluding the children born after the appointed day, namely, Jan. 26, 1962 from calculating the total number of the members of the Hindu Undivided Family. For understanding this question, the facts to be noted are that the petitioner as the Karta of joint Hindu family filed a return under section 12 of the Ceiling Act. He declared only 156 acres 09 gunthas as the total holding of the family. He also notified certain members of the family. In due course of verification of the land it was found that the total land held by the family was 159 acres 15 gunthas and not 156 acres 9 gunthas. This was. the first conclusion drawn by the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer also considered the report of the village officers in regard to the members of the family of the petitioner. The report perhaps showed that including a married daughter, there were 10 members when the report was made. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is so vague that it is difficult to understand which members of the family he took into account for coming to the conclusion that 162 acres would be the ceiling area permissible for the petitioner's family. Arithmetically calculated, it would appear that there ought to be three more members besides the basic five so that the ceiling area could be 162 acres. Without making it clear whether the married daughter was excluded or the subsequently born children were included in or some of them were excluded, the Sub-Divisional Officer somehow came to the conclusion that 162 acres is the Ceiling area permissible for the petitioner's family. On that footing he found that there was no surplus.

(3.) The Commissioner in suo motu proceedings under section 45 of the Ceiling Act issued notice to the present petitioner and after hearing him passed the impugned order dated Jan. 15,1969. In this order the Commissioner seems to assume that the married daughter has got to be excluded from consideration altogether. That would leave only 9 members in the family including the last 2 children, named Santosh and Saroji, who are respectively born on 5-4-1962 and 5-9-1964. The Commissioner further observed that the ceiling area is to be determined as on the appointed day, namely, Jan., 26,1962, and subsequently born children must be excluded from consideration, excluding the last two children, Santosh and Saroji, whose birth dates have been given above, he found that the total number of the members of the family is 7. After permitting 108 acres as the basic ceiling area for 5 and adding 36 acres for the additional two members, the learned Commissioner found that 144 was the ceiling permissible for the petitioner's family. Papers were directed to go back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for permitting choice of land to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, this petition has been filed.