M K C RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been treated as a ceiling surplus holder under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the At') and challenges the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue as well as the competent authority under the Act.

(2.) The petitioner's case, in brief, is that his father late M. Suba Rao died leaving behind three sons and three daughters and in a family partition. The properties of the joint family consisting of M. Suba Rao and his children were divided. The family partition is of the year 1951 and the registered partition deed is dated 27-3-1951. But they had a piece of land in mouza Ramgarh measuring Ac. 4.928 decimals which was kept joint. After the Act came into force on 17-2-1976, the petitioner submitted a return indicating therein that his residential land together with the building standing thereon in mouza Patapur measures Ac.0.097 decimals and he had acquired another piece of vacant land adjacent to his house measuring Ac.0.299 decimals and he had 1/6th interest in the joint family property in mouza Ramgarh. The competent authority framed a draft statement indicating therein that is the joint family property which included the vacant land of Ac.4.920 decimals in mouza Ramgarh and Ac.0.097 decimals in mouza Patapur, the petitioner's 1/6th interest worked out at Ac.0.837 decimals and the petitioner's self acquisition in the said mouza Patapur, to the extent of Ac.0.299 decimals on being added, the total came to Ac.1.136 decimals. Since the petitioner is entitled to the maximum of 2000 sq. meters equivalent to Ac.0.504 decimals, the surplus land in his hand is Ac.0.632 decimals. The draft statement was prepared on 5-3-1990. The petitioner filed his objections on 2-4-1980 as per Annexure-1 but the competent authority rejected all the objections which were communicated to the petitioner on 27-8-1981.

(3.) The petitioner carried the matter in appeal which was heard by the Member, Board of Revenue. The appellate authority by its order dated 19-7-1982 allowed the appeal in part and held the surplus in the hands of the petitioner to be Ac.O.243 decimals. The petitioner assailed the said appellate order in a writ petition which was registered as O.J.C. 2207/82 and a batch of six writ petitions, four filed at the instance of the petitioner and his other claimants and two filed by the State, were heard together. The High Court remanded the matter to the Competent Authority being of the opinion that the surplus land had not been correctly computed and further being of the opinion that in view of Sub-Sec. (7) of S. 4 of the Act protecting the interest of the major sons of a Hindu undivided family, the same had not been borne in mind in computing the ceiling surplus. After remand the competent authority reheard the parties and the only claim raised by the petitioner was that he was entitled to two shares for his two major daughters on the date the Act came into force. That contention was rejected by the competent authority relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 234 (Maharao Saheb Shri Bhim Singhji; Anantalakhshmi Pathabi Ramasharma Yeturi etc. v. Union of India). The petitioner carried the matter in appeal. Before the appellate authority, three contentions had been raised by the petitioner :