NAMDEO BALIRAM KATHOLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an instance where a grave injustice, was likely to be caused to the petitioner on account of the incorrect and improper method adopted while determining the holding of the petitioner for the purpose of deciding as to whether any part of that holding is in excess of the ceiling area.

(2.) The petitioner Namdeo Baliram Kathole is an agriculturist residing at Jambhora in Darwha tahsil. He is holding agricultural lands in that village and also at Home other places. He submitted a return under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act). That return was treated as Ceiling Case Mo. 466/60-A (5)/1975-76. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (S. L. D. T.) held an enquiry on a hypothesis that the petitioner was holding 94.37 acres of land on 20-9-1970. According to the Tribunal, this much area was from Section Nos. 7, 9/1, 9/3, 10/1, 10/3 and 14 of Sarangpur and Section No. 30/4, 36/2, 37/1 and 37/2 of Jam-bhora. There was also one more Section No; 36/1 of Ganori. It is not necessary to give the acreage of these lands but suffice it to say that the total, comes to 94.37 acres. The S: L. D. T. found that the petitioner has sold Section No. 7 (Sarangpur) on 26-4-1971 and Section No. 36/1 (Ganori) on 27-1-1974. A finding was recorded that these sale-deeds have been executed in anticipation of or in order to avoid or defeat the objects of the Amending Act, 1972. Section 10 provides that, such transactions are to be ignored while determining the holding of a person. Thus, the S. L. D, T. ignored these two sale-transactions and held that the petitioner was holding 94.37 acres. Some portion was excluded as pot-kharab. The petitioner, under the Ceiling Act, was entitled to hold 54 acres. An order was, therefore, passed that petitioner held 34.23 acres as a surplus laud and the said surplus land was delimited from, out of particular survey numbers, as mentioned in the order. Those details are also not necessary for deciding this writ petition. Against this order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M. R. T.). That appeal was numbered as Ceiling Appeal No. Alc-A-1193/1976. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging these orders.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the S. L. D. T. as well as the M. R. T. have committed error in recording a finding that the petitioner was holding 94.37 acres of land on 26-9-1970. As a matter of fact, on that day, the petitioner wag holding 55.23 acres. This position could not be challenged on behalf of the State. The arithmetical calculations made on the basis of the revenue records makes this position clear. Mr. Patil for the petitioner submitted that the subsequent sales and acquisitions by the petitioner has not been correctly taken into account. He argued that the petitioner's holding on 26-9-1970, after excluding the pot-kharab, was less than 54 acres. Thus, for obvious reasons there could not have been any bar on any transfer of the land from his holding. According to him, neither Section 8 nor Section 10 would make any such transfer bad. This question has been considered in Narayanibai v. State of Maharashtra (1976 Mah LJ 865) in the following words: