MADHAVRAO ANANDRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the surplus holder under Article 227 of the Constitution against the appellate decision of the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Paithan, holding that he held surplus land to the extent of 27 acres and 21 gunthas.

(2.) Enquiry into the holdings of the petitioner was started by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Paithan. During the enquiry, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal found that some lands were transferred by the petitioner after 26th September, 1970 in favour of his son and grand-daughter. The Surplus land Determination Tribunal came to the conclusion that he held 71 acres and 1 guntha as owner and tenant on the relevant date. It was observed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal that some of the lands were seasonally irrigated by flow-irrigation from source constructed and maintained by the State Government and that area fell in category (c) of sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the "Act"). Such area was found to be 8 Hectors and 19 Acres, i.e., about 21 acres. He converted that area into dry crop area and thus the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal came to the conclusion that he held 81 acres and 21 gunthas as dry crop land. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal rejected the petitioners claim for excluding certain land on the basis that it was pot kharab land and also on the ground that he had surrendered his tenanted lands Survey Nos. 10/1 and 11/1 of village Pathewadi to the owner in 1975. It was his case that proceedings under section 44 read with section 32 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for resumption of the land were initiated by the owner of the land on 30th March, 1959 after terminating his tenancy. Those proceedings were still going on. All pleas of the surplus holder were rejected by the Tribunal and that is how the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal found him surplus holder to the extent of 27 acres and 21 gunthas. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and it is against his order that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that both the Tribunals have committed an error in not excluding the land to the extent of 1 acre and 17 gunthas from the holding of the petitioner as it was not land as understood under sub-section (16) of section 2 of the Act. It is true that both the Tribunals have not examined this point and the learned Assistant Government Pleader objected to this point being urged for the first time in these proceedings, but in view of the fact that I am sending back the case I think, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal should examine this point, much more so because the petitioner has in his return under section 12 of the Act has shown land to the extent of 1 acre and 17 gunthas as pot kharab. Mr. Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated that those figures have been given on the bases of the entries in the record of rights which could be verified. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal will examine the contention of the petitioner in that respect and find out whether some of the land was really pot kharab land.