BHIKULAL R SONI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question with regard to which this petition was heard was whether the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were justified in including the entire area of 21 acres 33 gunthas of survey No. 27 of Khopti in the total holding of the petitioner.

(2.) THE VII/XII extracts on the file of the records before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal show that out of Survey No. 27, 16 acres and 1 guntha were in the cultivation of the petitioner and 5 acres 27 gunthas werein cultivation of one Sakharam Shivaji in the years 1969-70 and 1970-71. Before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal the notice under section 17(1) referred only to 16 acres 1 guntha of land and according to the petitioner, he was, therefore, not called upon to meet the case as to why 5 acres 27 gunthas also should not be included in his holding. According to the petitioner, 5 acres 27 gunthas in survey No. 27 came to be recorded separately in the name of Sakharam because he was declared as the statutory owner under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950---Notice under section 17(1), dated 12th June, 1968 as also certified copy of the VII/XII extract in respect of survey No. 27 showing the possession of Sakharam during the years 1960-61 to 1972-73. THE Revenue Tribunal, however, disposed of this contention with the observation that the area of Survey No. 27 as per VII/XII village form was 21 acres 23 gunthas and not 16 acres 1 gunthas. Since the Revenue Tribunal declined to give any relief to the petitioner in respect of land which, according to him, was in the possession of the tenant as owner, the petitioner has filed this petition. THE petitioner argument with regard to the other points decided against him by the Revenue Tribunal were not of much substance and, therefore, notice was issued to the State Government to show cause as to why the extent of the land statutorily transferred to the tenant should not be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. Mr. Hegde appearing on behalf of the State has produced the original record which also discloses that the entries in the VII/XII extracts, are that out of 21 acres 33 gunthas of Survey No. 27, 5 gunthas are Potkharab land and out of the remaining land of 21 acres 23 gunthas, 16 acres 1 guntha was in cultivating possession of the petitioner and 5 acres 27 gunthas was in cultivating possession of Sakharam Shivaji in the years 1969-70 and 1970-71. However, in 1971-72 and 1972-73 only one entry has been made in the second column to show that the field has been personally cultivated. Mr. Agarwal has also produced a separate extract from the year 1973-74 to the year 1975-76 which again shows that the 5 acres 17 gunthas of land in the name of Sakharam Shivaji has been separately numbered as Gate No. 48 and for the years 1973-74 to the years 1975-76 Sakharam has been in separate cultivating possession of 5 acres 17 gunthas. If a part of survey No. 27 was declared to be of the statutory ownership of sakharam and he was in cultivating possession, then that part of the land out of Survey No. 27 could not be included in the possession of the petitioner. THE learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, contends that some further entry will be necessary with regard to the actual possession since at least for the two years 1971-72 and 1972-73 the name of the Sakharam does not appear in the Revenue Record. Since the petitioner has prima facie made out a case for deduction of 5 acres 27 gunthas from his total holding, I think it will be in the interest of justice to have this matter further gone into by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. THE order of the Surplus Land Determination the surplus land after taking into account the entire area of Survey No. 27 as recorded will, therefore have to be set aside. THE Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, is now directed to make a further enquiry as to the possession and cultivation of 5 acres 27 gunthas from Survey No. 27 in the years 1969-70 to 1975-76 and further decide as to whether Sakharam is in cultivating possession on the said area. If Sakharam is found to be in cultivating possession at the material time, then this area will have to be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. THE Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, shall further go into the question as to whether 5 gunthas of Pot Kharab land as recorded was also liable to be excluded from the computation of holding. THE Surplus Land Determination Tribunal shall issue a notice to Sakharam Shivaji before taking any decision in respect of 5 acres 27 gunthas as aforesaid. It is made clear that the scope of the enquiry before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, is restricted only to the points indicated above. Petition partly allowed. No. Order as to costs.