BHAGIRATIBAI REDDY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petition under Article 227 of the constitution, the petitioner landholder challenges the order passed by the Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, dismissing her appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Collectors, Land Reforms, Nanded, holding that she was a holder of surplus land to the extent of 144 acres and 25 gunthas.

(2.) IT is not necessary for the purposes of this petition to enumerate all the facts in details as the petitioner confines to and challenges the order regarding three transfers she had effected in favour of her children viz. (1) transfer of 72 acres and 16 gunthas in favour of her daughter Laxmibai in 1954, (2) 49 acres and 29 gunthas in favour of her son Dilip, and (3) 62 acres and 25 gunthas of land in favour of her other son, Vilas. IT is not disputed that if these lands are excluded from her holdings, them she did not hold land in excess of ceiling area and that is exactly what the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Nanded, had initially held but that order was sou-motu revised by the Commissioner. In my opinion, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, and the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have committed an error in holding that the petitioner held these lands on the appointed day. Both of them have referred to the records of rights and mutation entries by which the transfers were recorded in the name of transferees prior to 4th August, 1959. The transfer in favour of the daughter was effected in 1954 and those in favour of the sons were effected in 1958. He Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, and the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had, therefore, committed an error in proceeding to examine the genuiness of the transactions instead of examining who was in possession on the appointed day. There is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner was in possession of these lands on the appointed day. In fact, the revenue record discloses that the transferees were in possession of the lands transferred to them. That being so, it could not be said that the petitioner was holding these lands on the appointed day. The authorities have, therefore, committed an error in including these lands in the holding of the petitioner. As stated earlier, if these lands are excluded, the petitioner did not hold any surplus land. The order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, and affirmed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is set aside and the original order dated 31st January, 1974 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Nanded, is restored. In the result, the result is made absolute with costs.