SUHAS PRALHADRAO DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner-purchaser has questioned the order dated 21-10-1994 passed by respondent No. 2. By the said order, respondent No. 2 has dismissed revision filed under Section 45 (2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, Ceiling Act) filed by the petitioner. The petitioner states that he has purchased land having Survey No. 183/2-A ad-measuring 3. 15 acres of village Yawali from its owner i. e. respondent No. 4 by registered sale deed dated 7-5-1985. On 31-12-1985 the sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati passed an order and declared land holders to be surplus by 525. 17 acres, he directed land holders to submit retention statement in form No. 7. This order was then challenged by owners by filing appeal under Section 33 of the Ceiling Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur. Number of transferees from owners also joined said appeal as respondents. The present petitioner was not respondent before the MRT. The MRT, on 28-8-1989 dismissed those appeals and relation to grievance made, by the purchasers from owners, had observed that as the lands were not then delimited as surplus, grievance by such purchasers was premature.

(2.) It appears that thereafter the lands were delimited as surplus,under Section 21 (2) by the S. D. O. , Amravati and said, Gazette notification was published on 10-5-1990. The, s. D. O. , Amravati directed distribution of land so delimited as surplus by order dated 9-7-1990 and said order was then assailed by the purchasers including the petitioner by filing revision before respondent No. 2-Commissioner. The Commissioner decided said revision on 30-3-1993 and found that the only grievance of purchasers was that their land should not be delimited as surplus i. e. it should not have been included in declaration under Section 21. Respondent No. 2-Commissioner, therefore, concluded that grievance was in relation to declaration under Section 21 and not in relation to distribution. The present petitioner, therefore, filed another revision before respondent No. 2-Commissioner vide Ceiling Revision No. 6/60-A (6) /93-94 of Mouza Yawali against the notification dated 10-5-1990 under Section 21 (2) of the Ceiling Act. In the said revision he contended that as he has purchased the land by registered sale deed from original owners, said land was encumbered and in view of the provision under Section 16 of the Ceiling Act, the same cannot be declared as surplus. The said revision stands dismissed by the impugned order by observing that earlier revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 30-3-1993. It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Advocate Shri. Mohta for the petitioner and learned A. G. P. Shri. Kankale for respondents No. 1 to 3. Nobody appeared for legal heirs of original respondent No. 4.