A
B
HIRA LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 22, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.]
Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961:
S.6.12-Computation of ceiling are~amily of five members entitled
C to one unit-If two more members are in the f amity each entitled to one unit
separately-However appellant did not raise the plea that he had three
daughters either before the authorities or before the High Cowt-Certificates
produced before this Court-Very difficult to rely upon after lapse oj time
without investigation of a finding by any auth01ity under the Act.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 319 of
1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.78 of the Bombay High
Court in S.C.A. No. 3045 of 1973.
E
K. Rajendra Chowdary, for the Appellants.
F
G
D.M. Nargolker, for the Respondents.
The following order of the Court was delivered ·:
This appeal arises from the order of the Bombay High Court made
on September 1, 1979 in Special Civil Application No. 3045 of 1973.
The only question in this appeal is : whether the appellants are
entitled to two more units under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Land (Ceiling of Holdings) Act. 1961 [for short, the 'Act']?
In the High Court it was stated that the Tribunal ought to have
condoned the delay in filing the review petition and the failure to condone
the delay was an~
apparent on the face. of record. The High Court did
not agree with that contention. On merits, no challenge was made to the '
order of the Tribunal before the High Court. Mr. K..Rajendra Chowdhary,
H learned counsel for. the appellants contended that -~ his return filed under
984
}
HIRA LAL v. STATE
985
Section 12 of the Act on April 25, 1962, in the verification he had men-. A
tioned that apart from himself he had three sons and three daughters. In
computation of the ceiling area, a family of five members is entitled to one
unit and if two more members are in the family, each is entitled to one unit
separately. If that is considered, the finding of the Tribunal is not correct
and that the appellants are not in excess of 30.4 acres of land but within B
the ceiling limit. Therefore, the High Court was not right in dismissing the
matter. In support of the contention that the appellants had three
daughters, he seeks to place on record the school certificates said to have
been issued by the Head-master concerned.
The only question is : whether the High Court is 'fight in its above-
C
stated conclusion. The counsel appearing for the appellants did not press
anything on merits. He merely argued that the refusal to condone the delay
in filing the review petition constitutes an error of law. It is seen that the
condonation of delay is discretion of the Tribunal or the Court, as the case
may be. Whether to grant or to refuse condonation of delay being within
the discretionary power of the Court and the Tribunal, we find no com-
D
pelling reason to disagree with the findit1gs and the conclusion reached by
the authorities. The question whether the first appellant has two members
as three daughters are said to be there, it was open to him to press before
the authorities but unfortunately he did not raise any plea neither before
any of the authorities or before the High Court.
E
In these circumstances, it would be very difficult for this Court to
rely upon the certificates produced before us without any investigation or
a finding thereon by any authority under the Acl and to act upon the same
at this distance of time. We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
F
G.N.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex