MADANLAL SHANKAR MALIWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the correctness of the Commissioner's order and decision dated May 30, 1967 whereby in the suo motu enquiry held by the Commissioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961, the Commissioner held that six lands of the second petitioner Godavaribai, (being the wife of the first petitioner), consisting of the aggregate area of 83 acres 4 gunthas, were liable to be added to the 112 acres and 19 gunthas of the land-holding of the first petitioner for ascertaining the surplus lands held by the first petitioner in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the above Act.

(2.) ON the return being filed by the first petitioner originally the Collector, Parbhani by his decision and order dated November 80, 1964 held that the first petitioner was the owner of lands of the aggregate area of 110 acres 32 gunthas. Ona hundred find eight acres was the ceiling fixed for the area. He, therefore, held that the first petitioner held 2 acres and 32 gunthas of land as surplus land and directed notice under Section 16 of the Act to issue in respect of that surplus holding. The Commissioner in the suo motu enquiry held by him held that the first petitioner s lands aggregated to 110 acres and 19 gunthas. His wife, the second petitioner, owned six other lands of the aggregate area of 83 acres and 4 gunthas. In connection with that holding of the second petitioner, the argument before the Commissioner on behalf of the second petitioner was that these lands had been acquired by the second petitioner under registered deeds of gift executed after permission was granted in that connection under Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, As these lands were of the separate ownership of and were held separately in exclusive possession by the second petitioner, these lands were not liable to be included under the above Act in the aggregate land-holding of the first petitioner for ascertainment of the surplus lands held by the first petitioner. The Commissioner rejected that contention by observing that the important point for consideration was as to whether Godavaribai (second petitioner) was joint or separate from land-holder (first petitioner) and mere omission of her name in the return made by the first petitioner did not establish that she was separate from the first petitioner. He stated: "no substantial evidence has been produced to the effect that she is separate in estate from her husband. Under the Hindu Law wife is presumed to be joint in all respects with her husband, unless contrary is proved. As such the land held by her will have to be included while counting the holding of the land-holder" (first petitioner.)For the above reason, he rejected the contentions made on behalf of the second petitioner and made the findings as already recited above.

(3.) THE first contention on behalf of the respondents was that a "person" was defined in Section 2 (22) of the Act to include a family and the language of Section 4 (1) has the effect of directing that holdings of all the members of a family must be considered holdings of a single person and the holdings of all members of the family were liable to be clubbed together for ascertainment of surplus lands held by the family in excess of ceiling area.