LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus VITHALRAO GANPATRAO WARHADE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA A v. VITHALRAO GANPATRAO WARHADE OCTOBER 15, 1998 [S.P. KURDUKAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] B Tenancy and Land Laws : Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961: c Section 4(1) proviso (as amended by Amending Acts, 1972 and 1975)- Surplus /and-Difference of one day in the commencement of the two amending Acts-Determination-Effect-Held, difference of one day does not affect the declaration filed by the dec/arant on or after 2-10-1975-Therefore, in regard to all declarations filed by owners on or after 2-10-1975, the proviso to S. 4(1) ceased to apply-Hence, Tribunals entitled to go into the question D whether the transfer of lands made between 26-9-1970 and 2-10-1975 is bona fide or not and apply S. 10(1) and the new Explanation thereto. Interpretation of Statutes: Amendment-Earlier legislation amended by subsequent legislation- E Effect of-Held: The amendment is deemed to have been incorporated in the earlier legislation so that it is not necessary to refer to the Amending Act at all. The appellant - landowner gave a list of various lands owned by his 'family unit' upon a public notice given under the Maharashtra Agricultural F Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 as amended by the Amending Act, 1972 and further amended by the Amending Act, 1975 which came into force on 19-9-1975 and 20-9-1975 respectively. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal held a certain extent of the appellant's land as surplus and ordered the appellant to surrender it. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this order. G However, the High Court set aside these orders and held that the various alienation made by the appellant during the period 26-9-1970 and 19-9-1975 were to be excluded from the appellant's holding under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence this appeal. In this appeal the following questions arose before this Court:- 323 H 324 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. (1) Whether the fact that initially the Amending Act of 1972 was brought into force w.e.f .. 19-9-1975 and the Amending Act of 1975 was brought into force w.e.f. 20-9-1975 would result in the disputed extent being excluded from the holding by 19-9- 1975 so as not to attract Section 10(1), for considering whether the transfers of these lands in the crucial period was intended to avoid or defeat the object of the Amending Act, 1972? (2) Whether the words 'Amending Act of 1972' in Section 10(1) mean the said Act as it stood on 19-9-1975 or as it stood further amended on 20-9-1975 by the Amending Act of 1975? C Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. The contention of the respondent based on the difference of one day between the initial commencement of the Amer.ding Act 1972 and the commencement of the Amending Act 1975 is liable to be rejected for two reasons-Firstly, no exclusion by way of orders was passed by any Tribunal D between the parties-based on the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961-on the solitary day 19-9-1975-nor did any such exclusion become final on 19-9-1975 before the latter amendment became effective from 20-9-1975. Even before any such thing happened, the proviso to Section 4(1) stood deleted w. e. f. 20-9-1975 E when the Amending Act, 1975 came into force. Hence in regard to all declarations filed by the owners on or after 2-10-1975, the proviso to the Section 4(1) ceased to apply. Once the lands of the description in the said proviso did not stand excluded w. e. f. 20-9-1985, the Tribunals were entitled to go into the question whether the transfers ofsuch land between 26-9-1970 and 2-10-1975 were bona fide o'r not and apply Section 10(1) of the Act and F the Explanation added in Section 10(1) by the Amending Act, 1972. Secondly, the very date 19-9-1975 of commencement of the 1972 Amending Act stood postponed to 2-10-1975 by an Ordinance and hence even before the Amending Act could be applied, the proviso to Section 4(1) stood deleted w. e. f. 20-9-1975. Hence, in regard to all orders passed by the Tribunals on or after G 2-10-1975, it was obligatory for the Tribunals to apply Section 10 to all lands even ifsuch lands had earlier stood excluded by the proviso to Section 4(1) and apply the new Explanation added in Section 10(1). [333-F-G-H; 334-A-B-C) 2. In the present case, the Tribunals passed the orders in 1976 by H which time under the 1972 Amending Act the concep
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.