KUNDLIK TUKARAM FATANGALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that arises for determination in this petition is regarding the number of members in the family falling under the definition of 'family unit' as given under Section 4 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 as amended, (hereinafter called the New Act). The petitioner was taken as holding in all the lands measuring 84 acres and 23 gunthas. Pot Kharab of 4 acres was allowed so that the land for the purposes of determining the ceiling area was taken as 80 acres 23 gunthas On the basis of 6 members in the family he was allowed to retain 60 acres so that 15 acres 23 gunthas was declared as surplus.

(2.) The decision of the Surplus-Land Determination Tribunal was maintained by the Revenue Tribunal, but on a slightly different reasoning as will be evident later on. In challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the petitioner had taken two points, one about the members in the family unit and other about the pot kharab. It was contended that pot kharab was 18.97 acres. However, at the time of hearing the point regarding the pot kharab was not pressed.

(3.) As regards the members in the family unit, the petitioner has two wives, two minor daughters, one minor son on the date the return was filed and one more minor son was born to his wife on 2-2-1976. According to the petitioner, therefore, the family unit consisted of 7 persons inclusive of the child in the womb so that there were four minors, two spouses and the petitioner himself. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the unit consisting of 6 persons disallowing the submission of the petitioner that the child born on 2-2-1976 ought to be counted as a member of the family unit. In deciding the appeal the contention of the petitioner that the child in the womb should be looked upon as a member of the family unit was accepted but the Tribunal has taken the unit as consisting of 6 members only because in the estimation of the Tribunal the two wives are to be counted as one member for the purposes of family unit. It appears that in appeal a specific objection was not raised on behalf of the State contending that the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal erred in counting the two wives but since the Tribunal has given the decision, that point also will have to be looked into.