JUGAL KISHORE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 26-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
JUGAL KISHORE 
·' 
v. 
t 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 1988 
< 
·i 
··' 
. [SABYASACHI MUKHAIUI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
J 
Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 
1961: Determination of question of tenancy-Whether within the 
jurisdiction of Ceiling Authority,-Land transferred by owner to various 
,J; 
,_ 
. 
tenants under Bombay Tenancy Act, 1958-Authority under Ceiling 
Act 1961 determining land holdings-Whether legal, valid and proper. 
In the ceiling proceedings under the . Maharashtra Agricultural 
L\lnd (Ceiling ori Holdings) Act, 1961 the petitioner alleged that there 
was no sur1Jlus land in the holding of his family Unit as certain lands 
had been leased out. to various tenants and the same had been transfer· 
D 
red to them under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands 
(Vidarbh~ Region) Act, 1958 arid, therefore, the tenanted lands should 
be excluded from his total holdings as the orders of the Tenancy 
Authorities had become final and were binding on the Ceiling 
Authorities. Rejecting the claim of the petitioner the sub-Divisional 
Officer held that the orders passed by the Tenancy Courts conferring 
E 
tenancy rights and issuin~ certificates in favour of the tenants were not 
justified and declared 58.28 acres of land as suri>lus. This finding was 
maintained by the Revenue Tribunal. The challenge made by the 
petitioner before the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the 
High Court also failed. · 
F 
In the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution 
to this Court, on behalf of the petitioner it was contended that in view of 
sub-s. (2) of s. 100 of the Bombay Act, the Tenancy Tahsildar had 
exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy, and s. 124 of the 
Bombay Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with any 
question covered bys. 100 and, therefore, determination of the question 
G 
of tenancy by the Ceiling Authorities was without jurisdiction. 
H 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition; this Court, 
HELD: 1. Land had been transferred to the various tenants 
under the Bombay Tenancy & Agriculture (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 
in the name of the respective tenants by the order of the Tenancy 
Tahsildar. [272F] 
270 
·' 
JUGAL KISHORE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [MUKHARJ!, J.] 
271 
2. The Ceilin~ Authority had to determine the land holdings of 
A · ,· ·,:~
the petitioner. [274C] 
· 
· 
3. Where a transfer is made by the land-holder creating a 
tenancy, whether the transfer was made bona fide or made in anticipa-
tion to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act, is a question which falls 
for determination squarely by the Ceiling Authorities, to give effect to 
B 
or implement the Ceiling Act. [274C-DJ 
4. Unless the Acts, the Ceiling Act and the Tenancy Act, with the 
intention of implementing various socio-economic plans, are read in a 
complementary manner, the operation of the different Acts in the same 
field would create contradiction and would become impossible. It is, 
therefore, necessary to take a constructive attitude in interpreting pro-
visions of these types and determine the main aim of the particular Act 
in question for adjudication before the Court. [274E-F] 
S. In the Ceiling Proceedings it has been held that the transfer to 
the tenant was not bona fide .and was done in anticipation of the Ceiling 
Act. This Court finds no ground to interfere with the Order of the High 
Court. [275AJ 
c 
D 
'. 
• ..• 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
>· ,' 
(Civil) ]'lo, 3292 of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.1987 of the Bombay 
High Court in LP.A. No. 124 of 1985. 
V.A. Bobde, Juggal Kishore and A.K. Sanghi for the Petitioner. 
A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, J. This application under Article 
136 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order of 
E 
F 
the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, 
G 
dated 7th September, 1987. Before the Division Bench, the land-
holder-the petitioner herein, had challenged the dismissal of the writ 
petition at the stage of admission by the learned Sillgle Judge confirm-
ing the order of the learned sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, dated 
28th February, 1984 and also the order of the Maharashtra Re~enue 
Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 26th December, 1984, declaring very large 
H 
A 
B 
c 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1988] S

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