NARAYANIBAI WIDOW OF RAMBILAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is not much dispute about the facts in this case. The petitioner was the holder of 55 acres 24 gunthas of land on 26-9 1970. Her husband was alive at that time, but it seems to be a common ground that she was the holder of these lands in her own right. Out of 55 acres 24 gunthas, 4 acres 39 gunthas are Pot-kharab. On 10-11-1971 she sold 25 acres 10 gunthas covered by the two survey numbers, namely, Nos. 3/6and 4. All these lands are situated at village Khopda, Taluq Morshi, District Amravati. Her husband died on 10-1-1975. Under the will of her husband dated 15-2-1972 she received 35 acres 4 gunthas. Thus, on the commencement date of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as amended by Act No. 21 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner held in all 65 acres 18 gunthas, after excluding the land sold by her on 10-11-1971 and adding the lands which she got from her husband under the will. It is not disputed that 8 acres 22 gunthas out of this 65 acres 18 gunthas are Pot-kharab. Therefore, on the commencement date, namely, 2-10-1975, she was the holder of only 57 acres 36 gunthas.

(2.) Notwithstanding these indisputable facts, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Morshi, held her to be the holder to the extent of 77 acres 15 gunthas and surplus holder to the extent of 23 acres 15 gunthas by its order dated 12-3-1976 by ignoring the sales dated 10-11-1971. On appeal, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed it and confirmed the said order by its order dated 7-5-1976. The validity of these orders is challenged in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) Mr. Marpakwar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contends that the Courts below were in error in presuming that the sale of the two lands measuring 25 acres 10 gunthas on 10-11-1971 by the petitioner was hit by section 10 of the Act as amended. According to Mr. Marpakwar, the ceiling area admittedly is 54 acres. After exclusion of the Pot-kharab area of 4 acres 39 gunthas the petitioner held only 50 acres 25 gunthas on 26-9-1970. Her sale in all of 25 acres 10 gunthas on 10-11-1971, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be within the mischief of section 10 of the Act as amended. There appears to be considerable substance in this contention of the learned Advocate. All that section 10(1) of the Act as amended contemplates is that transfers made by "any person" or "a member of a family unit" after the 26th day of September 1970 and before the commencement date, namely, 2-10-1975 in anticipation of or in order to avoid or defeat the object of the Amending Act, 1972, should be so ignored as to take the same into consideration in calculating the ceiling area of the "person" or the "family unit", as the case may be. The section then also raises a statutory fiction of such transfers being deemed (unless the contrary is proved) to have been made in anticipation of or in order to avoid or defeat the object of the Amending Act, 1972. Any reference to other parts of the section for the purposes of the determination of the point under consideration is not necessary. The question that really falls for consideration is: Can any such presumption of transfer being in anticipation of or in order to avoid or defeat the object of the Amending Act, 1972, ever be raised where on the date of the transfer the transferor holds lands upto less than the ceiling area? My learned Brother Sawant J. had occasion to consider this very question in Abdul Bhai Vs. State, Spl. C.A. No. 3345 of 1976. D/d. 13.8.1976. The learned Judge answered the question in the negative. Mr. R.R. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, could not dispute the proposition of law laid down in this judgment. It is thus clear that ordinarily the two sales of lands dated 10-11-1971 could not be deemed to have been made in anticipation of or in order to avoid or defeat the object of the Amending Act, 1972, and the petitioner could not have been called upon to prove to the contrary as she was holding lands less than the ceiling area, namely, 54 acres, on the date of the sale, namely, 10-11-1971.