STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus GULAB RAO

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 682 · Decided: 30-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
A 
B 
~ 
\ . 
; 
\\ j 
i ' . 
\ 
I 
·., 
I 
: 
~ 
' , 
::- .. -----.... ~~ 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
( 
\ 
\. GULAB RAO 
JANUARY30, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH, RL. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Ac~ 1961-Sec-
. tion 3(1) r/w section IO(l)(a) Explanation-I and/I-Applicability-Ceiling . 
. area-Determination of-Consequences of ~ertain transfers and acquisition of .. 
C ·laftd-Transfers made prior io 26th Septembef. 1970--Unregistered docu-
ment.r-Transfers to be treated as made after 26th September, i970 in an-
ticipation of or in order to avoid object of Amending Ac~ 1972-These lands 
. to be taken into consideration in calrulating ceiling area of transferor of lands. 
, ~ 
; 
. . . 
. 
. 
- _, 
- -
• 
D 
The writ petition filed against the order was allowed by the High 
Court holding that though these agreements were hit by Section 10 or the 
Ceiling Act, the concerned transfers were protected by Section 53A or the 
· .Transfer .or Property Act, and as the respondent was not In actual cultiva, 
tion or these lands on the commencement date, the Tribunal was in error 
G in confll"Illing the order or the original authority adding these lands .to · 
· holding of the respondent. The High Court further. took the view that 
nierely because of nnregistered agreements entered into by the land holde~ -,-
it was not possible to. give an extended meaning to Explanation II to 
Section 10(1) of .the Ceiling Act and, therefore, the matter wa5 required to. 
H be re-examined In the .context of the provisions or Section 2(14) or the 
.682 
'STATEOFMAHARASHTRAv. GULABRAO 
683 
Ceiling Act. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the A 
matter was remanded for a fresh decision of the Tribunal. Hence this 
appeal. 
The appellant State contended that the entire approach of the High 
Court was erroneous and the order of remand passed was contrary to the' 
very scheme of the Act especially Section 10 read with section 8 of the Act B 
and no further enquiry was required. It was submitted that the lands were 
admittedly conveyed to prospective purchasers-transferees by agreement 
of sale dated 1.4.1968. The agreements being unregistered, on combined 
operation of the first Explanation to section 10 and Section 8, these 
agreements would be covered by the sweep of the second explanation to C 
section 10. Consequently, it had to be held that these transactions would 
be treated to have come into existence between 26-9-1970 and the commen-
cement date. Therefore, Section lO(l)(a) would get attracted a~d would 
treat these transactions to have been entered in anticipation of or in order 
to avoid or defeat .the object of the Amending Act, 1972 and consequently 
these lands covered by these transactions had to be taken into considera-
tion in calculating the ceiling area of the transferor of such lands. It was 
contended that the question of applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer 
of Property Act was totally irrelevant for deciding this controversy. 
D 
The respondent submitted that Explanation II to Section 10 created E 
a rule of evidence and even assuming that an unregistered transfer prior 
to 26-9-1970 was to be ignored, still the enquiry into the question whether 
the person concerned was holding the land lawfully and was in actual 
possession of the land as owner or tenant would be required to be under· 
taken. It was alternatively contended that the transferees of such lands 
could be said to be deemed tenants under section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy F 
and Agricultural Lands Act, and even on that ground that lands held by 
such transferees as deemed tenants could not be clubbed with the ~olding 
of the transferor. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Under the Maharashtra Agrictdtural Lands (Ceiling on 
Holdings) Act, 1961, in order to compute the holding of any land by the 
owner, it should be shown that the concerned lands are in actual posses-
sion of the occupant as owner. Despite the fact that the owners may not be 
G 
in actual cultivation of these lands which are transfe!"rt:d, if these trans- H 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A ferred lands are hit ~y · any of the provisions of Chapter 3.111, ~uch 
transaction will get ignored and the transferred land will have to be added 
back to the holding of the owner for purpose of computing the ceiling and 
excess lands owned by him. [688-D-H, 689-A] 
According to sub-section (l)(a) of Section 10, i

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