GULABRAO ANANDRAO MAHURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The surplus holder petitioner Gulabrao, according to his own return filed under section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, referred to hereinafter as the Ceiling Act, holds 124 acres 13 gunthas of land. In the enquiry it was found that 6 acres 20 gunthas land was pot-kharab and, therefore, was excluded while calculating the ceiling area. The family of the surplus holder consists of 3 members and on the basis of this family unit, the ceiling area of the petitioner was fixed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. During the course of enquiry it was revealed that the surplus landholder had agreed to sell survey numbers 12, 13 and 14 of Virgawhan having a total area of 51 acres 8 gunthas on the basis of Saudachittis (agreement of sale) executed on 1-4-1968. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal held that this transaction is hit by section 10 of the Ceiling Act and, therefore, ultimately found that the surplus holder was in possession of 64 acres 13 gunthas of land over and above the ceiling area.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this order, petitioner Gulabrao filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal found as a fact that the names of the transferees appear in the crop-statement from the year 1968-69 onwards and this will indicate that the possession was already delivered by the Surplus holder to the transferees on 1-4-1968 and he is no longer in possession of the said survey numbers. In spite of this finding, the learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal found that in view of the Explanation to section 10 of the Ceiling Act the possession of the transferees of the said survey numbers, though actual, is not lawful. The transferees are not in lawful actual possession of these survey numbers and, therefore, the lawful possession of the land in question is still with the surplus holder. According to the learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal, the surplus holder should have registered the Isarchittis before 26-9-1970 and then alone the transaction could be taken into consideration. However, as this has not been done, the case of the petitioner cannot even be tested in the context of the provisions of section 10 of the Ceiling Act. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by him was dismissed. Being aggrieved by these orders, the present writ petition is filed by the landholder.

(3.) Shri Madkholkar and Shri Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended before me that in view of the definition of term "to hold land" as given in section 2(14) of the Ceiling Act, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in actual possession of the land. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, as the petitioner was not in actual possession of these survey numbers, it could not have been included in his holding. In support of this contention, they have relied upon the following decisions of this Court, namely, Shakuntala Vs. Totaram, 1967 Mh.LJ Note 27 ; Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. S.Ramamurthy, 1973 Mh.LJ 85 ; Khaja Abdul Hassan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1974 Mh.LJ Note 2 ; Purushottam Vs. State, 1975 Mh.LJ Note 29 and Kanhayalal Vs. The State, 1972 TLR 112 .