TANABA CHINDHUJI BHOKARE Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which arises in this petition is whether the Collector in the course of an enquiry under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act. 1961, hereafter referred to as the Ceiling Act, has jurisdiction to decide an issue of tenancy if such an issue arises before him. Proceedings for determination o? surplus land commenced on a return filed under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act by respondent No. 4 Mandakinibai, who is referred to hereafter as the holder, were pending before the Special Deputy Collector, Yeotmal. The petitioner appeared in these proceedings after a notice under Section 17 (1) was caused to be given by the deputy Collector. After the petitioner appeared he put in a written objection and it was his contention that he was a tenant of survey numbers 3, area 28 acres and 36 gunthas, and 5 area 16 acres and 32 gunthas of Mukharampur since before the year 1957-58 and that these two fields could not be declared as surplus land. It may be stated that in the return filed by the holder she had shown these two fields along with other land as being in her possession on the prescribed date, that is. 4-8-1959. The total area of the land, inclusive of these 2 fields in dispute, as shown by the holder was 155 acres 6 gunthas. The Deputy Collector while referring to the objection of the petitioner that he was in possession of survey numbers 3 and 5 as a tenant, found that he had led no evidence in support of his case. He, however, took the view that the question whether the petitioner objector was in possession of these fields as a trespasser or a tenant could not be decided by him for want of jurisdiction and that the holder should seek her remedy in the proper Court. The Deputy Collector Passed an order that since the holder had admitted that she was in possession of these two fields between the period from 4-8-1959 to the end of the year 1962-63 and she had indicated that these fields would be retained by her, he did not include any area of these two fields as surplus land. The proceedings before the Deputy Collector terminated by a declaration that survey number 9, area 26 acres 19 gunthas was the surplus land and he accordingly directed a notification under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act to be issued. The petitioner aggrieved by this order had filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur.

(2.) WHEN the appeal came up for hearing the arguments before the Tribunal were restricted to the question whether the Special Deputy Collector had jurisdiction to decide whether the petitioner was a tenant of fields survey numbers 3 and 5. The tribunal took the view on a consideration of the provisions of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Ceiling Act that the Collector under the Ceiling Act could decide the issue of tenancy between the surplus holder and any other person. The Tribunal further took the view that the powers of the Collector under the Ceiling Act were not controlled by any other Act and that the Ceiling Act was self-contained. The view taken by the Special Deputy Collector that he had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy was, therefore, held to be erroneous. The Tribunal took the view that apportunity should be given to the parties to file additional statements and to lead additional evidence. The order passed by the Deputy Collector on 29-9-1966 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to him for a fresh decision on merits- The petitioner has now filed this petition challenging the view taken by the Tribunal that the Deputy Collector had jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy raised by the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy raised by the petitioner before the Deputy Collec- ? tor could be exercised only by - the Tahsildar in view of the provisions of Section 100 of the D, hereafter referred to as the Tenancy Act, and therefore, the only course which was open to the Deputy Collector was to refer the issue of the petitioner's tenancy to the Tahsildar. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the holder also supports this submission and the argument advanced by him was that because the word 'tenant' which is defined in Section 2 (30) of the Ceiling Act refers to a person, who is deemed to be a tenant under the relevant Tenancy law, and the 'landlord' referred to in that section is also referred to as a person who is deemed to be a landlord under the relevant tenancy law, the competent authority to decide the issue of tenancy was the Tahsildar in view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Tenancy Act.