RAJE VISHESHWAR RAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellants Writ Petition No.21 of 1996, which took exception to the orders passed by the authorities under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, .the Act.) in respect of the appellants agricultural lands.

(2.) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aheri, had initially passed an order on 30-11-1971 in respect of the appellants holding. This order was challenged before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, who remanded the matter for fresh enquiry; upon which, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed a fresh order holding that the appellant was in possession of 756 acres of surplus land. This order was challenged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. A writ petition against the said order was dismissed. Upon remand by the Revenue Tribunal, the Sub-Divisional Officer ordered on 8-12-1992 that the appellant held 792.03 acres of surplus land. He also passed order on de-limitation. On an appeal, the Tribunal held that the total extent of surplus land held by the appellant was 757.13 acres. This order was challenged by filing writ petition, the judgment wherein is impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the authorities below were not justified in including 419 acres of land under water tanks by concluding that they were man-made tanks. The appellant also assails the order passed by the learned Single Judge for refusing to exclude 136.46 acres of land transferred by the appellant/petitioner to his mother in the year 1959 and 2.48 acres of land sold by the appellant to Roman Catholic Missionary. By an order dated 4-2-2000, the appellants contentions in this appeal were directed to be restricted to 2.30 acres of non-agricultural land bearing survey nos.70/1 and 70/3, and 419 acres of land under the natural tanks with the additional question as to whether the appellant had been deprived of the opportunity of giving option to select as to which land he was going to retain. The appellant could not have questioned non-inclusion of 136.46 acres of land transferred by him to his mother in the year 1959, because no registered document evidencing such a gift had been tendered. Same holds good about 2.48 acres of land allegedly sold to Roman Catholic Missionary.