RAGHUNATH LAXMAN WANI AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 06-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

48 
RAGHUNATH LAXMAN WANI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASIITRA AND ORS. 
August 6, 1971 
[J. M. SHELAT AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J 
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings Act) 1961-
ss. 3, 4, 6-Cei/ing area-Act does not contemplate refixa(ion on account 
of increase or decrease in the number of members of family after appointed 
day-Additional I /6th in excess of ceiling area for each member of family 
in excess of five-Section 6, proviso. 
In. proceedings held under s. 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural 
Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, the Deputy Collector rejected 
the appellants' case of partition and determined the surplus land to be 
surrendered under the Act. He also held that of the 14 members of the 
family, three of them were born after January 26, 1962, that is, the ap-
pointed day under the Act, that appellant M had purchased II acres 
c 
of land separately on March 11, 1960 and therefore they could not be 
0 
treated as members of the family under s. 6 for the purpose of the addi-
tional I /6th of the basic ceiling area. On appeal, the Revenue Tribunal 
accepted the findings of the Deputy Collector. But the Tribunal made 
a modification in the order of the Deputy Collector in that it held that 
·though the property was acquired in the name of M there was nothing 
to show that the acquisition was from his separate funds or was to be 
held by him separately and, hence he could not be excluded from the 
family for the purpose of s. 6. The Tribunal consequently modified the 
ceiling area. 
E 
HELD : (i) The Deputy Collector and the Tribunal have, after 
an examination of the materials placed before them, .arrived at the con-
current finding that the appellants' case of severance of status and parti-
tion of the family Jani! was noJ acceptable. This Court will not be 
F 
justified in an appeal under Art. 136 in interfering with such a concur-
rent finding of fact. [54G] 
., 
(ii) The scheme of the Act is to determine the ceiling of each person 
including a family with reference to the appointed day. The ceiling area 
so fixed would not be liable to fluctuations with the subsequent increase 
or decrease in number of the family members, for there is, apart from 
G 
the explicit language of ss. 3 and 4 no provision in the Act providing for 
the redetermination of the ceiling area of a family on variations in the 
number of its members. The argument that variations in the number 
of the members of a family required a redetermination of the ceiling 
area would mean an almost perpetual fixation and re-fixation in the 
ceiling area by the revenue authorities, a state of affairs that could not 
have been contemplated by the lagislature. [57H;58B-D] 
H 
State v. Dinkarrao Rarayanrao Deshmukh, (1969) 72 Born L.R. 
237 and Murari Rao S. Gube Patil v. State, Spl. C.A. No. 767/68, dt. 
I 
RAGHUNATH 11· MAHARASHTRA (She/at,/.) 
49 
A 
18-4-1968 referred to; view contra in Civil Application No 1578 of 1969 
decided on 16-7-1969 (Bombay) held incorrect. 
(iii) Under the proviso to s. 6 for the purpose of increasing the 
holding of a family in ·excess of the ceiling area,. if a member thereof 
holds any Ian~ separately he cannot be regarded as a member of that 
family for such purpose. The proviso is clear, since there was no evidence 
B that M or the family had treated the lands purchased in the name of M 
on March 11, J960 as the separate property of M, the tribunal was right 
in regarding M as a member of the family and consequently holding that 
the family would be entitled to an additional I/6th of the ceiling area so 
far as M was concerned. [59E-G] 
c 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1967· 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 2, 1966 of the Maharastra Revenue Tribunal, 
Bombay in Appeal No. ALC-A 12 of 1966. 
V. M. Tarkundey, V. M. Limaye and S. S. Shukla, for 
the appellant: 
V. S. Desai, S. B. Wad and S. P. Nayar, for the repon-
dents Nos. 1-and 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shelilt,. J. This appeal by special leave, is against 
E the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Re-
venue Tribunal, dated September 2, 1966, in proceedings 
held by the Deputy Collector under s. 14 of the Maha-
rashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of 
lands held by the appellant_s. 
F 
G 
H 
The following pedigree explains the relationship bet-
ween the appellants: 
· 
Tukaram (de

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