PANDURANG MADREWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's surplus holding was determined by the surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Ahmedpur, at 6 acres 34 gunthas and since 22 gunthas was found to be potkharab land, 6 acres 11 gunthas was determined as surplus land. The total holding of the petitioner as computed included the area of S. Nos. 169-4, 11-K 51, 121 and 95-B The petitioner took an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the order of the surplus Land Determination Tribunal, in which he had raised several contentions regarding the computation of his holding. All those contentions were negatived and that is why this petition.

(2.) It is firstly contended by Mr. Bandivadekar on behalf of the petitioner that S. No. 169 A, 11-K and 121 were admittedly purchased by the petitioner during the period 16-9-1970 to 2-10-1975 and these transferes should, therefore, have been taken into account while determining the holding of the respective transferors and that these fields could not be taken into account for the purpose of computing the holding of the petitioner. This agrumeut has no force. It is not known whether these different person from whom the petitioner has purchased the above mentioned fields were thesurplus holders at all.It is also not known whether they had furnished any returns under section 12 or whether they were or were nor liable to furnish any such returns. It is not established that in some other proceedings these fields werealready included in hold ng of the respective transferors, If they had been so included then only the question whether the area of these fileds would be taken into account for the second time for computation of the holding of the petitioner could also, Section 10 of the Ceiling Act on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is not relevant because that will be attracfed only if the transferor originally exceeded the ceiling limit and he had transferred certain lands. It is only while computing holding of such land holder that these transfers are to be taken into account for computing his total holding. The provisions of section 10 are not attracted in the case of the present petitioner who is a transferee or a transferor. He cannot, therefore, make any grievance of the fact that the purchases made by him during the relevant period have been taken info account.

(3.) The second contention raised is with regard to S. No. 11/H and it is contended that the field is really owned and is possessed by one Abdul Aziz and should have been, therefore, excluded from the total holding of the petitioner Now this Abdul Aziz filed a peiition before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. According to Abdul Aziz, he continued to be the owner of the land S. No. 11/H He, however, failed to establish his case before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. Abdul Aziz did not file any appeal against the rejection of his objection. Coupled with this the fact remains that so far as posesion and ownership is concerned, the petitioner has not only shown these fields as being owned and possessed by him in tha return which he has filed but even in his oral statement he hes reiterated that position. It is, therefore, difficult to entertain the submission coming from the petitioner that though he bad clearly stated that the filed was owned and possessed by him the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal should t.ave held that the field really belonged to Abdul Aziz.