LexGANPATRAO GULABRAO PAWAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A GANPATRAO GULABRAO PAWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA APRIL 6, 1992 B [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND B.P. JEEVAN REEDY, JJ.] Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961-Sections 3,5,9-Legis/ative intention-Acquisition of land above ceiling limit-Liable to surrender. c Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, -- 1961-Sections 14 to 20, 21, 45--Declaration-When to be made-Detennina- -1 tion of land less than ceiling limit-Not declaration and not appeal- able-Revisionary power-Exercise of-Whether any bar operates. .... D Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961-Sections 3, 14 to 20, 21, 45, read with Section 11, Code of Civil Procedur:e, 190~etem1ination of surplus land in a subsequent proceed- ings-Detennining holding in earlier proceedings-Whether operates as res judicata. E Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings), Act, 1961-Section 45--Suo motu revision Detennination of holding-Inclusion of the extent of land received by exchange-Theory of exchange dis- ~ believed-Whether the extent of land to be excluded. F Appellant No. 1-land holder filed a return of his holding under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings), Act, 1961. The Collector after making inquiry held that as his total holding of agricultural lands was 124 acres 23 guntas (converted into dry lands) and having regard to the number of his family members the appellant No. -t 1 was not a surplus holder. G - Though the order of the Collector was in favour of the appellant No. 1, he filed an appeal before the Revenue Tribunal, contending that he was not holding 124 acres 23 guntas of land and that his holding was lesser than that. The appeal was dismissed summarily. H Sometime after the disposal of the appeal, the Additional Commis- 4/. 466 G. G. PAWAR v. STATE 467 ).- sioner issued a notice u/s. 45 ofthe Act to the appellant No. 1 calling upon A him to show cause as to why the Collector's order be not revised; his holding be determined at 231 acres and why the surplus should not be directed to be surrendered. Appellant No.1 submitted his objection u/s.45(2), proviso contending B that when an appeal was filed against the order of the Collector, the pl).wer of suo motu revision was not available to the Commissioner u/s.45 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner rejected the preliminary objection -- and passed an order on merits, holding that the holding of fands of the )-- first appellant was 202 acres and 31 guntas (when converted into dry crop c land), that be was entitled to retain only an extent of 160 acres and that ,,,_ he was a surplus bolder to an extent of 42 acres 31 guntas. The matter was remitted to the S.D.O. for delimiting the surplus area. The appellants questioned the validity of the Commissioners' order by way of a writ petition in the High Court, contending that inasmuch as D the order of the Collector was appealed against, it could no longer be revised by the Commissioner in view of the express bar contained in the proviso to Section 45(2) and further and that the lands he obtained by way of exchange as well his lands which were given away under the said exchange, were both included in his holding. E The High Court dismissed the writ petition, against which the ap- pellants filed this appeal with the leave of this Court. The appellants contended that the appeal preferred by the appellant No. 1 before the Revenue Tribunal was a proper and competent appeal. F Though that appeal was dismissed, it operated as a bar to the exercise of --4... the revisory power under Section 45(2), proviso. ' The respondent submitted that an appeal was maintainable against the declaration or a part thereof. The part which was not appealed against G was open to revision under Section 45(a); that the provision in Section 33 providing for a right of appeal and the provision of Section 45(2) confer- ring a supervisory power in the Government/Commissioner must be bar· y monised so as to give both the provisions their due play; that mere rejection of theory of exchange did not necessarily mean that the extent in gut No. 521 should be excluded from the appellants' holding when they H 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R. A themselves claim that it was theirs. Partly allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD : 1.01. The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.