BHIKOBA SHANKAR DHUMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. versus MOHAN LAL PUNCHAND TATHED & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 218 · Decided: 11-02-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

218 
A 
BHIKOBA SHANKAR DHUMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
MOHAN LAL PUNCHAND TATHED & ORS. 
February 11, 1982 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND A. VARDARAIAN, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as it stood 
prior to amendment of Chapters II land III by the Mahallishtra Act 21 of/975-
Locus standi of former landlords to file an appeal under the Act-Construction of 
non-analogous statutes, applying the doctrine of stare decisis, explained-Scope of 
section 21 as to dropping of the proceedings if ileath occurs of a person holding on 
tM appointed day land in ex<:ess of the ceiling area prescribed in the Act, after 
filing the return and before a notification containing the declaration regarding sur~ 
plus land held by him is published in the Official Gazelle under section 21 of the 
Act and possession of such surp/u.1 land is taken over by the authorities concerned, 
explained. 
Bhikoba. the tenant (the predecessor of the appellants), as required by 
section 12 of the Maharashtra Land Ceiling Act, filed before the Special Deputy 
Collector a return in the prescribed form furnishing particulars of land including 
the extent of 21 acres 28 guntas bearing Survey No. 34 in his possession on the 
appointed day, that is, January 26, 1962. After recording the statement of 
Bbikoba and considering all the other relevant material before him, the Special 
Deputy Collector found that Bhikoba was in possession of surplus land to the 
extent of 132 acres 1 guntas, as per bis order dated March 27, 1965. The appeal 
filed by Bhikoba was partly allowed by the appellate authority by its order <hrted 
April 13, 1966 and the matter was remanded to the ,Special Deputy Collector with 
certain directions. Thereafter Bhikoba died.on January 31, 1969 .. On "June 27, 
1969, the Special Deputy Collector after ]1hearing the legal representatives held 
that BhikoQa was a surplus holder of land to the extent of 16 acres and 26 guntas. 
An appeallagainst that ord~r filed by the four sons of Bhikoba was dismissed on 
November 4, 1970 as premature, since the holders had not yet exercised 
their choice under section 16(2) of the Act and a declaration under section 21 had 
not yet been made. 
When a notice was issued under section 16 of the Act to the heirs of Bhikoba 
to exercise their choice in respect of the land to be retained by them out of 
Bhikoba's holding to the extent of the ceiling area, the heirs of Bhikoba filed 
objections on November 23, 1971 pleading, inter a/ia, that a holder of land in 
excess of the ceiling prescribed by the Act would be divested of bis title to the 
surplus land only when its possession was taken from him after the publication 
of the notification under section 21 of the Act and since such notification had 
not yet been puQlished and possession of the surplus land had not been taken, 
Bhikoba continued to be the owner of the entire land till his death and that as 
inheritance could not remairi in abeyance, bis heirs at law became entitled to t~ 
• 
BHllCOBA SHANKAll v. MOHAN LAL 
219 
. entire land and that if a fresh determination was then made there would be no 
surplus.land at all in their hands which had to be surrendered. 
The Special 
Deputy Collector accepted the plea of the heirs of Bbikoba and dropped further 
proceedings by his order dated Marc.h 13, 1973. 
Respondents I to 4, former 
landlords, who would have become entitled to claim.relier under the Act at the 
time when the distribution of Surplus land held by Bhikoba was taken up for 
consideration preferred an appeal against the order of the Special Deputy 
Collec~or dropping tbe groceedings, before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribllna·I. 
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated January 31, 1975. A 
petiticn filed under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of 
Bombay challenging the decision of the Tribunal was allowed by tho High Court 
by its judgment dated July 30, 1980 and the matter was remanded to the Special 
Deputy Collector to continue the Proceedings commenced on the basis of the 
return filed by Bhikoba. Hence the appeal by special· leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
HBLD: !. Respondents I to 4 had locus standi to file not only an appeal 
before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but also later on a petition under 
Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court. It is no doubt true that 
at the first instance the land which is declared a surplus 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.