RAMAKANT WAMANRAO DESHPANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this writ petition pertains to the provisions of the unamended Ceiling Act as unfortunately those proceedings themselves have not reached the completion. Wamanrao was the original land holder and was having extensive lands. He did not file the return as is required under section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called as Ceiling Act for short ). An inquiry was therefore held and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Yavatmal by his order dated 15-1-1973 directed the land holder to file return while imposing fine of Rs. 100/ -. A preliminary finding was reached therein that the land holder appeared to have possessed more than what was permitted by the Ceiling Act. The land-lord admittedly filed the return and an inquiry was held and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani, by his order dated 31-7-1975 came to the conclusion that the land-lord was possessing surplus land of 142 acres and 25 gunthas and after deducting 7 acres 16 gunthas from holding being pot Kharab land, he came to the conclusion that 135 acres and 9 gunthas of land was liable to be determined as surplus land. There was an appeal under section 33 against this order and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed the Sub-Divisional Officers order by its order dated 20-7-1976. This appellate order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was challenged by way of writ petition which was allowed and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was directed to reconsider the appeal. On remand the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 7-8-1984. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has again confirmed the order in respect of the fields Survey Nos. 9 and 23 of village Tembhi, 9 of village Kundi and S. Nos. 28, 45 and 47 of village Rajni and has held these fields within the ceiling area of the petitioner. In respect of the contention of the petitioner regarding potkharab land the tribunal held that potkharab land was not properly worked out by the Sub-Divisional Officer and fresh inquiry was liable to be held. The Tribunal therefore remanded the appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer only for the consideration of the potkharab area. However, since the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of the fields referred to above was confirmed, the petitioner has come up in the present writ petition and therefore the only question which is to be decided in the writ petition is as to whether the fields mentioned above have been rightly included in the holdings of the present petitioner.

(2.) SHRI Bapat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner very strenuously argued that all these fields were tenanted fields and they were not in possession of the petitioner on 4-8-1959 which was the relevant date. His further case is that thereafter the fields never came in possession of the land holder. In as much as the land holder sold the fields even prior to the appointed day i. e. 26-1-1962. He contended that it was the case of the land holder that though these fields were in possession of the tenants, the tenants themselves have created sub-tenants and those sub-tenants were assented to by the landlord and it was precisely in favour of those sub-tenants, the sale deeds were effected. According to Shri Bapat, the fields never came in possession of the petitioner though the original tenants had snapped their rights with the fields in question.

(3.) SHRI Deshpande, the learned A. G. P. pointed out that there was specific evidence recorded of the tenants wherein those tenants had specifically stated that they were ousted from their land by the land holder either directly or through his Diwanji and after they were ousted from the lands, the possession went in favour of the land holder. Shri Deshpande also drew my attention towards the crop statements and pointed out that there was no explanation as to why the crop statements atleast for one year price to the sales were suggesting the possession of the land holder. In paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 the tribunal has considered the possession regarding each fields separately and has found that in respect of the fields S. No. 9 of village Tembhi which was sold to one Gangaram by a sale deed dated 19-4-1961, there was evidence on record of Bajirao the original tenant who deposed before the Sub-Divisional Officer that he lost his possession to the land-holder as the landlord did not lease out and took forcible possession from him. Shri Deshpande pointed out that the tribunal has relied upon the evidence of Bajirao as also on the crops statement to suggest that the landlord had been in actual possession. In respect of S. No. 23 on which the original tenant was POCHIBAI, the crop statement suggested that the field was cultivated by Pochibai from 1951-52 to 1959-60 as a protected lessee and thereafter the land was sold to one Rama Nathu. The tribunal has relied upon the evidence of Pochibai to hold that Pochibai had never, sub-let this land in favour of Rama Nathu, she was in fact dis-possessed by the land holder. Her evidence has been relied upon by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal as also by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Similar is the case in respect of S. No. 9 of Kundi which was in possession of a protected lessee Aaiya Butte Kolam from 1954-55 to 1958-59. The crop statement entries of this field show that in the year 1959-60 and 1960-61 the field was fallow. The crop statement suggests the possession of the land holder. This field was sold to one Nagamma. The Tribunal has repudiated the claim that it was the Nagamma who was in possession of the field from the year 1958-59 and 1960-61 onwards. The tribunal has relied upon the evidence of Aaiya Butte who claimed that he was dis-possessed and also reiterated that he had never sub-let the field to said Nagamma and therefore there was no question of said Nagamma being a tenant thereof. Even the situation is not different in case of S. Nos. 28, 45 and 47 of village Rajni. The field S. No. 28 was tenanted to one Rama Supare and on the date of commencement of the Act it was being cultivated by Fulya as per Kabulayat dated 15-3-1958. The crop statement also shows in respect of the field that it was fallow and it was the landlord who was in possession. The crop statement entries in respect of the other fields S. Nos. 45 and 47 also went on to show that the field was in possession of the landlord himself. All these fields came to be sold to Fulya, Laxman and Goma Hiraman respectively and all these sale deeds are prior to 26-1-1962. On the basis of this evidence the tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in actual possession of these fields after 4-8-1959, but before 21-6-1962, he had disposed of all these fields by sale deeds and therefore this was the case where the lands were held by the landlord after 4-8-1959 and he has sold it in contemplation of the coming legislation and therefore the transactions were covered by section 10. It was because of this reason that both the authorities, viz. the Sub-Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held all these lands in the ceiling area of the petitioner. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has graphically considered the evidence on record as also the documents. It cannot therefore be said that the finding regarding the actual possession of these fields, after their surrender from the tenants but before the sales were executed, was in any manner wrong. Shri Bapat drew my attention towards the Kabulayat dated 15-3-1958 in respect of S. No. 28, Kabulayat dated 15-3-1959 in respect of S. No. 45 and Kabulayat dated 17-3-1959 in respect of S. No. 47. I find that the contentions raised have been considered by the Tribunal in paras 7, 8 and 9. The Tribunal has correctly held that these fields had been in actual possession before their sale. The first contention raised by Shri Bapat that the fields never came in possession of the landlord and therefore they could not be said to have been held by the landlord has to be rejected. The tribunal has given a cogent reasoning and it shows that it was alive to the evidence led on record to which a reference has already been made. It will, have therefore, to be held that the fields had come in possession of the landlord after 4-6-1959 but the landlord had sold all these fields, which is an admitted position, before 26-1-1962. The controversy, however, does not end there.