VIMALABAI GOVIND JUVEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner's husband died in the month of June 1975. He had no issue. The agricultural property which the petitioner's husband had was his self-acquired property. The total holding was about 81 acres 3 gunthas. During the lifetime of late Govind Juvekar, the husband of the petitioner, he executed a registered will on 25-4-1973. By the said will the deceased bequeathed 35 acres of land to his nephew prabhakar Narayan Juvekar, respondent No. 4 to this petition. After the death of deceased Govind Juvekar in June, 1975, the said nephew became owner of the said property and is also in possession thereof. Thus it is the case of the petitioner that even before the commencement date i.e., 2-10-1975, of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972, referred to hereinafter as the Amending Act, 35 acres of Land was in possession of his nephew, namely, Prabhakar Narayan Juvekar. In spite of this, the said land was counted in the holding of the petitioner by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

(2.) It appears that Prabhakar Narayan Juvekar had filed his independent return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, referred to hereinafter as the Ceiling Act. He included this land in his holding. The said proceedings were ultimately dropped, because it was found that he was not holding land in excess of the ceiling area. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, such a plea in specific terms was raised before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. However, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal came to the conclusion that the will was executed by the deceased after 26-9-1970 and, therefore, the same is invalid in the eyes of law in view of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act. Ultimately, therefore, the said land was counted in the holding of the petitioner and the land measuring 23 acres 13 gunthas was declared as surplus out of her total holding.

(3.) Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal agreed with this finding recorded by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is these orders which are challenged before me.