VIKRAMADITYA MADANLAL GOENKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS Letters Patent Appeal by the land-holder-Vikramaditya is directed against the order dated 6-8-1986 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2925 of 1980 quashing the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal while purporting to review its earlier order affirming the order passed by the Surplus Lands Determination tribunal, Akola (S. L. D. T. for short), by which it had declared 17. 29 acres of land as surplus. While reviewing the earlier order, the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal found that in view of the lease in favour of respondent No. 2-Chandrakant, there was no surplus.

(2.) PROCEEDINGS were initiated before the S. L. D. T. upon a Return filed by Vikramaditya under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act. The S. L. D. T. found that Vikramaditya's total holding was 74. 26 acres, the transfers during the period from 26-9-1970 to 2-10-1975 were in respect of 23. 29 acres, Potkharab land worked out 2. 37 acres and at the time of enquiry vikramaditya's total holding was, therefore, 71. 29 acres. The family unit which consisted of 5 members could hold 54 acres of dry land and the family unit was, therefore, in possession of surplus land to the extent of 17. 29 acres Chandrakant who felt aggrieved by the order passed by the s. L. D. T. that the lease in his favour of field surveys Nos. 54/3 and 66/2 of village Kapileshwar, was not valid because he was not an agriculturist on the date on which the lease was purported to have been made, questioned the order passed by the S. L. D. T. by filing an appeal before the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The appellant-Vikramaditya also filed an appeal against the decision of S L. D. T. before the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal decided the appeal by the judgment, dated 5th February, 1970 in the absence of both chandrakant and Vikramaditya, after hearing the representative of the respondent-State and dismissed the appeals on merits. Against these dismissals, Chandrakant and Vikramaditya filed Review Applications Nos. CELC 4/79 and CELC 5/79.

(3.) THE Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal while deciding the review applications on 24th January, 1980 was satisfied that there was good cause for the non-appearance of the applicants before it and set aside the dismissals of their appeals on merits and after re-hearing the appeals, held that Chandrakant was the tenant of the two fields admeasuring 23. 29 acres and, therefore, Vikramaditya was not in possession of any surplus land. These decisions were challenged by the State by filing Writ Petition no. 2925 of 1980. The learned Single Judge was of the view that as there was no power in the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to review its own orders, the later decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal could not be supported. He, therefore, quashed the order made by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal in review.