TALIB SYED HANIF Vs. MARNIKAR M R T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, have filed the above Special civil Application, challenging the validity and property of an order passed by the surplus Lands Determination Tuljapur on February 4. 1976. declaring petitioner No. 1 Abu Talib S/o. Syed Hanif, a surplus holder of 72 acres 30 gunthas of land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on holdings) Act, 1961, which was confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in an appeal filed by the petitioner No. 2 to ten and also in appeal filed by petitioners No.l on June 4. the main contention of the petitioners was that all the lands cultivated by petitioner No. 1, were cultivated by him along withother petitioners as the heirs of legal representatives of Sayed Hanif who died about 35 years before the commencement date of the ceiling Act. i. e. October 2, 1975. It is contended by the petitioner that the family of the petitioner has been cultivating the land as tenants of survey Nos. 192, 193, 194, 195 and 196, which were lands belonging to Prakashnath Guru, were held by the said Papa Miya, permanently and thereafter Papamiya's son Sayed Hanif and the petitioners are the heirs of Sayed Hanif. It is fufiher stated by them that in or about 1948 during the Police Action of Hydrabad.possession of the petitioners' tenancy land was disturbed. They had also other lands. The lands of Prakashnath Guru, being Inam Land were taken by Atayat Department of the former Hyderabad State, on November 19, 1959

(2.) The lands were restored in the name of petitioner No 1 to all the petitioners by the Deputy Collector, Osmanabad, under the Hyderabad Atayat Act, in other words the contention of all the petitioners was that the tenancy lands and other lands were not in the possession of petitioner No.1 as exclusive owner but as a co-owner along with the other petitioners. The surplus Lands Determination Tribunal however, ignored the shares of petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 on the ground that the record did not indicate that the lands were joint. Ignoring the record of rights entries which in fact showed that immediately after the restoration of possession of the tenancy lands to Abu Talib, the lands entered in the name of all the petitioners and in the names of some other petitioners also. There is no dispute between the petitioners with regard to the shares held by all heirs. Never the less, the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, ignored the shares of all others and dealt with the lands as if petitioner No.l Abu Talib was the exclusive owner of the lands.

(3.) The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed that finding firstly on the ground that the appeals of the other petitioners was time barred by 48 days and secondly on the ground that the petitioner, Abu Talib alone was shown in the colum of cultivation and the names of Ibrahim and Yusuf were shown along with petitioner No. 1, In the elum of cultivation for the years 1970-71 to 1974-75 in respect of these lands observing as follows :