SHAGWAN SONAJI AMBHURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four petitions have been referred to a division Bench without a speaking order. It is, therefore, necessary to state the point that arises for our decision.

(2.) THE undisputed facts which are similar are these: The petitioners in the first three petitions are the land -holders and all of them have been declared as surplus holders by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (S.L. D.T.). Three of them filed appeals before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.). The Government had not filed independent appeals nor cross -objections as provided by Section 33 (1A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceilings Act). After hearing the appeals of the three surplus holders, not only the appeals were dismissed, but while doing so, the M.R.T. modified the order passed by the S.L.D.T. and added some more acreage to the surplus area of the three appellants. Being dissatisfied with this order, the three surplus land -holders have filed the first three special civil applications. As this order of adding to the acreage of surplus land adversely affects the petitioners in the fourth petition, they have filed Special Civil Application No. 4964 of 1976 in this Court. When these four matters were called out before the learned single Judge, one of the points which arose for his consideration was whether the M.R.T. had the jurisdiction to pass an order adversely affecting an appellant before it even though the respondent had not filed his substantive appeal nor filed cross -objections as provided by Section 33(1A) of the Ceilings Act. While referring these petitions, no speaking order has been passed by the learned single Judge nor has he framed the point for expressing our decision. Looking to the nature of the reference and the controversy we formulate the following point for being answered by us: Has the M.R.T. power similar to the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure while exercising its appellate powers under the provisions of Section 33 read with Section 34 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961?.

(3.) IT may now be pointed out that Section 33 of the Ceilings Act originally did not contain a provision for filing cross -objections. The right to file cross -objections was introduced by Maharashtra Amending Act No. 21 of 1975. Very briefly it may be noted here that the provisions of Sub -section (1) as well as Sub -section (1A) of the Ceilings Act do not refer to any particular person who could file the appeal or the cross -objections concerned. Those provisions clearly refer to the Collector's award or order and say that an appeal shall lie against an order or award of the Collector to the M.R.T. Having so declared the right of appeal, Sub -section (1) proceeds to enumerate the various orders and declarations and awards which are made appealable. In the same way, the added Sub -section (1A) merely bestows a right to file cross -objections upon the respondent in the appeal. A view has already been taken in this Court that the right of appeal under Section 33 is available either to the surplus holder who would be a private owner of property or to the State which is dissatisfied with the order of the Collector which in fact now is the S.L.D.T. In all the proceedings under the Ceilings Act, therefore, wherever an appeal is provided, either the private property owner or the State Government has been given the right to file appeals or cross -objections, as the case may be. We are in agreement with a similar view expressed earlier by the learned single Judge of this Court in Shakuntala v. Mah. Rev. Tribunal [1973] Mh. L.J. 737,