JUDGMENT

MADON, J. :—Prior to August 6, 1965, the Appellant, Sanjay Asarkar, and his father Dinkar, the Second Respondent, were members of a joint and undivided Hindu family. The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra Act No. XXVII of 1961) was brought into force with effect from January 26, 1962, by Government Notification in the Revenue Department No. ICH 1062-M (Spl) dated January 16, 1962. This Act will hereinafter be referred to in short as "the Act". As required by the Act, Dinkar filed on July 26, 1962 a return showing all the lands held by him. On August 6, 1965, the Appellant who was at that time a minor aged about one and a half years old. through his mother as his next friend, filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akot, in the District of Akola, a suit for partition of the joint family properties against Dinkar and the other members of the joint family. On September 30, 1965, the Collector determined the surplus land held by Dinkar. Under section 16 of the Act, a person is entitled to select the land which he wishes to retain with himself up to the ceiling area and on October 12, 1965, Dinkar exercised the said option given to him. On November 19, 1965, the Collector made an order accepting the option and made a declaration stating therein inter alia the total area of land which Dinkar was entitled to hold and the area, description and full particulars of the land which was delimited as surplus land. This declaration was notified in the Official Gazette on November 20,1965. On November 19,1966 the learned Civil Judge passed a partition decree. The fields which came to the share of the Appellant were those which had been declared as surplus lands. The Appellant thereupon filed under the Act a return in respect of these fields. The Deputy Collector held that the partition decree was of no effect and was invalid and that, if the said surplus lands had fallen to the Appellants share, he should make a claim for compensation in respect of the said lands as provided in the Act. The Appellant thereupon filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, which appeal was dismissed. The Appellant then preferred a writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The said writ petition was summarily rejected. It is against this order that the present Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court has been filed.

2. Learned Counsel for tile Appellant contended that the land which was declared surplus land vested in the State Government only when the Government took possession of it and that, as shown by Ss. 8 and 9 and subsec. (2) of S. 21, what was prohibited during the intervening period was inter parties dealing with such land, and that a partition decree was not hit by any of the provisions of the Act. Before we refer to the sections relied upon by the Appellant, it will be necessary to advert to the other relevant provisions of the Act. The Act was considerably amended by the Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975. As we are concerned in this Appeal with the provisions of the Act prior to the said amendments. it is to the unamended provisions to which we will refer. The object of the Act is stated in the Preamble thereof which reads as follows

"Whereas, for securing the distribution of agricultural land as best to subserve the common good, it is expedient in "the public interest to impose a maximum limit (or ceiling) on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra; to provide for the acquisition of land in excess of the ceiling, and for the distribution thereof to landless and other persons; and for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid."

3. Section 2 is the definition section and certain definitions therein are material for our purpose. There are the definitions of the terms "appointed day", "family", "to hold land", "member of a family" and "owner", given in clauses (4), (11), (14), (20) and (21) o