MOHAMMAD ISMAILKHAN MOHAMMAD YENUSKHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, "the Ceiling Act"). On a return being filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Ceiling Act, a ceiling case was opened in his case. The field survey No 1/1, area 18 acres 11 gunthas of village Bramhi (Bk) was held by him as a tenant. The petitioner submitted before the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (for short, the S.L.D.T. that he had lost possession of the said field in the tenancy proceedings for resumption of land, initiated by the respondents 2 to 4 landlords. It is, however, not clear from the order of the learned S.L.D.T. whether the said field was included in the total holding of the petitioner or not. But, since the S.L.D.T. has ultimately held that there is no surplus land belonging to the petitioner it would appear that this field survey No. 1/1 is excluded by it from the total holding of the petitioner.

(2.) The respondents 2 to 4, who as already pointed out, are the landlords of the aforesaid field, filed a revision under section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act claiming that there should be an enquiry in respect of the field Survey No. 1/1 as required by the section 19 of the Ceiling Act and that part of the land which the landlords are entitled to resume from the field Survey No. 1/1 should be restored to them. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 24-1-1986 allowed the aforesaid revision, because by a separate order passed in suo motu revision in the ceiling case of the petitioner the learned Additional Commissioner had disallowed the oral gifts and had directed fresh enquiry to be made in respect of the surplus land belonging to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Additional Commissioner directing enquiry to be made under section 19 of the Ceiling Act in respect of the field survey No. 1/1, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.

(3.) Before I proceed to consider the contentions urged in this writ petition, I may state that the order in suo motu revision passed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 24.1.1986 disallowing the oral gifts and directing the learned S.L.D.T. to make fresh computation of the surplus land belonging to the petitioner was challenged in Writ Petition No. 732 of 1986. By the judgment delivered by me in that writ petition on 17-2-1988. I have held that after remand the learned S.L.D.T. should make a fresh enquiry on the question whether the alleged oral gifts are followed by possession prior to 26.9.1970 for being valid gifts under the Mohammedan Law made prior to the said date so that the lands there under can be excluded from the total holding of the petitioner. Thus the scope of remand before the learned S.L.D.T. is enlarged by my aforesaid judgment. The judgment which is delivered in the instant writ petition is also concerned with the enquiry to be made by the learned S.L.D.T. in respect of the ceiling case of the petitioner. The finding and/or observations made in this judgment, therefore, should also be taken into consideration by the learned S.L.D.T.. in deciding the ceiling case of the petitioner.