GANGADHAR RAO MOHANRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only dispute in this petition filed by the landholder is with regard ro the inclusion of survey Nos. 85/16 acres 1 guntha, survey No 88/4 acres 12 gunthas and survey No. 346 as part of the holding of the petitioner.

(2.) Survey Nos. 85/1 and 88 are held to have been irrigated lands and their area in terms of dry crop land comes to 15 acres 20 gunthas. These two fields, according to the petitioner. Were in the possession of the tenant since 1964-65 and this position has been confirmed by the Record of Rights when the entry in th; name of tenant Vyanktrao was in kedon 12th December 1967. Admittedly the petitioner has sold his two fields to Vyankatrao on 3rd December 1971. In respect of survey No 346 the petitioners case was that there was a declaration under section 38F of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the "Hyderabad Tenancy Act,, ) in favour of one Vyankatrao Ramji who is a different person from Vyankatrao Ganpatrao who was the tenant of survey Nos. 85/1 and 88. Both these lands were taken into account for the purpose of the total holding of the petitioner which was determined at 111 acres 31 gunthas. The number of members of the family of the petitoner being 7, he was found entitled to retain 75 acres 24 gunthas and 36 acres 7 gunthas was declared surplus land. The land delimited as surplus included survey No. 346. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that the area of survey Nos. 85/1 and 88 could not be excluded from the holding of the petitioner and so also the area of survey No. 346. With regard to the first two survey numbers, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal took the view that the sale was after 26th September 1970. With regard to survey No. 346 the Tribunal held that its earlier order date 19th March 1962 by which the claim of the petitioner for possession was rejected in respect of survey No. 346 was not sufficient to prove that the land was declared in favour of the tenant and that the tenant Vyankatrao Ramji had not been impleaded as a respondent in the appeal. Both pleas having been rejected the petitioner has now filed this petition in which the contentions raised before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal are reiterated.

(3.) Now, it is difficult to accent the view taken by the the Revenue Tribunal that survey Nos. 85/1 and 88 should be reated as a part of the holding of the petitioner. It does not seem to he much in dispute that from 1964-65 onwards till at least 1969-70 these fields were cultivated by the tenant Vyankatrao Ramji. it is true that the petitioner has sold these lands to the tenant, but I fail to see how that transfer can affect the basic fact that the fields being in the possession of the tennant at the material time could not be treated as a part of the holding of the petitioner. Assuming for a moment that the sale is left out of consideration, the fact remains that the fields continued to be in possession of the tenant and could not, therefore, be said to be in possession of the petitioner so as to be includible as a part of the total holding of the petitioner. The Tribunal has, therefore, clearly in error in including survey Nos.85/1 and 88, whose total area in terras of dry crop land comes to 15 acres 20 gunthas, as 9 part of the holding of the petitioner.