Bombay High Court
State Of Mah Thru Its Secty. & 2 Ors vs Pralhad Madhorao Rulkar Trust ... on 22 June, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
J-lpa147.08.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.147 OF 2008
IN
WRIT PETITION No.5484 OF 2005
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. Additional Collector,
Yavatmal : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
Shri Pralhad Madaorao Ruikar Trust,
Through its Trustees,
1. A.Y. Deshpande, Advocate,
R/o. Anjaneya Agar
Yavatmal, Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal.
2. H.N. Tatwawadi,
R/o. Tilakwadi,
Yavatmal, Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal.
3. Dr. M.K. Badhe,
R/o. Balaji Society, Yavatmal,
Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri P.S. Tembhare, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri R.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.
nd JUNE, 2017.
DATE : 22
J-lpa147.08.odt 2/5
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. The judgment delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court
on 22nd August, 2007, in Writ Petition No.5484/2005 has been
questioned by State Government. Effort of learned A.G.P.
Shri P.S. Tembhare is to demonstrate that nearly because determination
of surplus land under the Amended Act has attained finality,
ascertainment thereof under Principal Act cannot be avoided. Though
the argument appears to be appealing, in present facts it has got no
merit.
2. Advocate Shri R.R. Deshpande appearing for the
respondents-land owner submits that under Amending Act i.e. the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and
(Amendment) Act, 1972 ceiling limit applicable in case of respondent
either of 108 acres or 110 acres was brought down to 54 acres from
appointed date i.e. 16th June, 1961. It was not the case of appellant that
after appointed day as defined in Principal Act i.e. the Maharashtra
Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, any land was sold or
otherwise encumbered by the respondents. In view of explanation to
Section 8 the transactions after 26th September, 1970 could have been
examined in new ceiling proceedings under Amending Act. He,
therefore, relies upon observations of the learned Single Judge to urge
that in absence of any material showing transactions between 1961 to
26th September 1970, opening of proceeding under Principal Act is
J-lpa147.08.odt 3/5
unwarranted.
3. With the assistance of respective counsel, we have perused
the papers.
4. The petitioner is admittedly a public trust possessing
necessary certificate under Section 129-B of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. The proceedings under
Principal Act were commenced against it and on 6.3.1980 Deputy
Collector found that the respondent-Trust owned about 4000 acres of
land in Yavatmal and Amravati district. He also found that these lands
were not in possession of the Trust, but were occupied by different
tenants. He, therefore, dropped those proceedings.
5. Divisional Commissioner at Amravati on 31.12.1982
exercised powers under Section 45 of the Principal Act, set aside that
order and remanded matter back for fresh enquiry. Sub-Divisional
Officer on 10.3.1988 directed Trust to file return. On 21.3.1989
Assistant Collector found 338.18 lands to be surplus. Trust came in
appeal before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which on 26.09.1991, set
aside that order and remanded matter back for fresh enquiry. The
Sub-Divisional Officer on 14.8.1992 found total holding of Trust to be
4689.24 acres and declared 4581 acres surplus. Trust again came in
appeal before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal found that in absence of an order under Section 14(3) of the
Principal Act, the order dated 14.8.1992 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer
J-lpa147.08.odt 4/5
was without jurisdiction. It was, therefore, set aside.
6. The matter then remained pending at that stage for about 9
years. The Commissioner, Amravati on 9.2.2005 passed an order under
Section 14(3) of the Principal Act authorized Additional Collector,
Yavatmal to declare 4581.24 acres of Trust land as surplus. After receipt
of notice, Trust objected to the proceedings. Their objection was rejected
on 19.9.1995 and thereafter these orders were questioned in Writ
Petition No.5484/2005 by the Trust.
7. The relevant observations and findings are contained in
paragraph 5 onwards of the judgment of learned Single Judge. The
learned Single Judge has taken note of paragraph No.7 of reply-affidavit
dated 3rd December, 2005 filed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal.
The Additional Collector, Yavatmal on oath disclosed that ceiling case
under the Amending Act was decided by S.L.D.T. It is not in dispute that
said determination by S.L.D.T. reached this Court in Writ Petition
No.243/1988 and vide judgment delivered on 3.3.1988, the challenges
of Trust were accepted. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the
niceties of said adjudication. However, on 3 rd March, 1998 extent of
surplus land as determined under Amending Act become final. It is
important to note that ceiling limit of 54 acres has been used for the
purposes of this exercise. Thus, a smaller unit has been applied and,
therefore, more land of Trust has been declared surplus. More land here
means land more in area than one which could have been declared
J-lpa147.08.odt 5/5
surplus under the Principal Act.
8. It is in this background that learned Single Judge has found
that on the basis of material on record no practical purpose could have
been achieved by permitting exercise of ascertainment of surplus land
under the Principal Act to continue.
9. Though the learned A.G.P. is right and submitting that the
transactions between 26.1.1961 to 26.9.1970 could have been reopened
and the eligibility to hold land under Principal Act could have been
worked out, material on record does not show any such transaction by
Trust between these two dates. Such transaction, if any, after 26.9.1970
upto commencement date of Amending Act i.e. upto 2.10.1975 may have
been subject matter of scrutiny in the ceiling proceedings under
Amending Act. When there are no transactions and Trust has not
encumbered any land held by it after 26.1.1961 till 26.9.1970, ceiling
limit worked out by applying a smaller unit wipes out the effect and
impact of need of adjudication under Principal Act.
10. We, therefore, agree with the reasonings and application of
mind by learned Single Judge.
11. No case is made out, Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore,
rejected. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
okMksns
