DR. JAYAPRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The one and the only question involved in the present writ petition is, whether survey No. 60 measuring 44.77 acres situated at village Jogikheda and recorded as tank is the land within the meaning of Sec. 2(16) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, the Ceiling Act). If the aforesaid survey No. 60 measuring 44.77 acres is the "land" within the meaning of Sec. 2(16) of the Ceiling Act, the said survey number cannot be said to have been wrongly included in the ceiling area of the petitioners and if it is otherwise, the area comprising of survey No. 60, measuring 44.77 acres deserves to be excluded.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts leading to the present controversy, are, that the petitioners (for short, the land holders) filed two returns under Sec. 12 of the Ceiling Act in the year 1975 and initially the competent authority held enquiry and by the order dated 17-1-1976 declared 56.51 acres of land as surplus land from the land-holders. The land-holders challenged the order passed by the Competent Authority in appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, the M. R. T.) and the appeal filed by the land-holders was dismissed so far as declaration of surplus land was concerned by the M. R. T. by its order dated 18-9-1976, but fresh choice was given to the land-holders for retention of land by them within the ceiling limit. The order passed by the M. R. T. affirming the order of the Competent Authority declaring 56.51 acres of the land as surplus, was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition and by the order dated 21-1-1982, and this Court quashed the order of the Competent Authority and the M. R. T. declaring 56.51 acres of land as surplus and the matter was sent back to the Competent Authority to conduct fresh enquiry into the ceiling area of the land-holders after giving proper opportunities to the land-holders to adduce evidence.

(3.) Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on remand, the Competent Authority held a fresh enquiry and gave opportunity to the land-holders to lead evidence in support of their case and ultimately, by the order dated 24-9-1987, the Competent Authority held that the land-holders were having 57.24 acres of land in excess, to the permissible ceiling area and held that the land-holders are entitled to retain 108 acres of land. While computing the total land available with the land-holders, the Competent Authority included Survey No. 60 measuring 44.77 acres recorded as tank. Since the present controversy in the writ petition only relates to Survey No. 60, the details about the other land are not required to be noted.