ACHUTRAO S O DHONDIRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having been aggrieved by an order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal delimiting 9 acres 8-1/4 gunthas for surplus land from Survey No., 119 filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal challenging that part of the order. The impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal notices the fact that the only contention of the petitioner is that the surplus land has not been delimited as per the choice. It, however appears that when the appeal was heard before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal the officer appearing on behalf of the State challenged the correctness of finding given by the Lands Tribunal that the petitioners son Jagdish was a major and his share of 21 acres 2 gunthas was to be left out of consideration. Tribunal took the view that it was not proved that the entry from the birth certificate related to the petitioners son and even the horoscope was not proved. Purporting to act in exercise of powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Revenue Tribunal set aside the order of the Lands Tribunal and remanded the case to it for an enquiry regarding the age of the petitioners son Jagdish. Similarly the finding given by the Lands Tribunal that area of 4 acres 12 gunthas which was acquired for Jayakwadi canal and Khamgaon-Chapadgaon Road was liable to be excluded from the petitioners holding was set aside. In this petition the main argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the findings in favour of the petitioner could not have been disturbed by the Tribunal inasmuch as it is not disputed that the State Government had not filed any cross-objection as contemplated by Section 33(1-A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling) on Holdings) Act (hereinafter referred to as the " Ceiling Act").

(2.) Section 33(1-A) of the Ceiling Act reads as follows :

(3.) It appeared, however, that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to choice still subsists. The Lands Tribunal had delimited surplus land from Survey No. 119 which as it appears from the order of the Lands Tribunal, stands in the name of the petitioners son. The landholder now wants an opportunity to indicate what land to the extent of 9 acres 8 gunthas he would like to be delimited as surplus. The matter is, therefore, remanded back to the lands Tribunal for the limited purpose of affording an opportunity to the landholder for exercising his choice. It is, however, directed that the land which he will now indicate for being delimited as surplus land would be the land which stands in the name of the landholder himself and not in the name of his daughter or his son. Petition is thus partly allowed. There will ne to order as to costs.