AWADHOOT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in Special Civil Application No. 417 of 1977 the petitioner, who is a tenure holder, hag filed a return before the Collector, which was subsequently forwarded to the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the S. L. D. T.') and after holding necessary enquiry, the S.L.D.T. found that the petitioner was holding 45.27 acres of land as surplus and, therefore, directed delimitation of the said land under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Being aggrieved by this order, he filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner raising various contentions before us. According to the petitioner, the authorities below committed an error in counting the land, which was already counted in the holding of his son Umakant in the separate and dis-tinct proceedings, and this double counting is expressly prohibited by Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act. He further contended that the authorities below also commit-ted an error in holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that his son, namely Umakant, was in possession of the said land as a tenant. A contention was also raised by the petitioner that the authorities below committed an error in coming to the conclusion that his son Purushottam was not major on the appointed date. According to the petitioner, Purushottam was born on 1st of Oct. 1957 and not on 11-10-1957 as held by the authorities below. Apart from these con-tentions, on merits of the controversy involved in the petition, the petitioner has also challenged the order of the S. L. D. T. on the ground that it was passed by less than three members and, therefore is without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 2-A of the Act. In this case it is an admitted position that the decision was taken by only two members of the Tribunal including the Chairman and the third member was absent. Therefore, according to the petitioner, as Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is ultra vires of the powers conferred upon the State Government by Section 2-A of the Act, the decision taken by the S. L. D. T. viz. by only two members is without jurisdiction, and hence is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) In other Special Civil Applications, apart from the other questions of fact raised, a similar contention is also raised by the petitioners. In these cases it is an admitted position that only Chairman has decided the matter. It appears from the record that in Special Civil Application No. 3387 of 1976 at the earlier meeting of the Tribunal, besides the Chairman one more member was present but on 27th March, 1976 both the members remained absent. The Chairman waited for hall an hour and then took up the proceedings and ultimately he alone passed the delimitation order on the same day. In all these petitions the petitioners have also challenged Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 on the ground that it is ultra vires of the power conferred upon the rule-making authority, it being outside the scope of rule-making power conferred by the Act. Therefore, the main question which required consideration in these writ petitions relates to the validity and legality of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules which have been made under Section 46 read with Ss, 2-A and 21 of the Act.

(3.) For properly appreciating the controversy raised before us, it will be useful to make a detailed reference to Section 2-A and Rule 3 (3) of the Rules. Section 2-A of the Act reads as under: