The surplus land under the Ceiling Act is to be determined with respect to the property held by the heirs or legatees of the deceased holder, and there is no obligation on the heirs or legatees to file returns in respect of the property held by the deceased holder.

Headnote:
CEILING ACT - SURPLUS LAND - DETERMINATION - DEATH OF HOLDER DURING ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS - HEIRS OR LEGATEES - LIABILITY TO FILE RETURNS - SURPLUS LAND TO BE DETERMINED WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY HELD BY HEIRS OR LEGATEES - NO OBLIGATION ON HEIRS OR LEGATEES TO FILE RETURNS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY HELD BY DECEASED HOLDER.
Fact of the Case:

Two cases involving the determination of surplus land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Ceiling Act) were heard together. In both cases, the original holders of the land died during the enquiry proceedings to determine the surplus land. The issue was whether the surplus land should be determined based on the land held by the original holders as on the appointed day (26-1-1962) or whether it should be determined based on the land held by the heirs or legatees of the deceased holders.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the surplus land should be determined based on the land held by the heirs or legatees of the deceased holders. The Court found that the Ceiling Act did not provide for the substitution of legal representatives of deceased holders, and that there was no obligation on the heirs or legatees to file returns in respect of the property held by the deceased holder.
Issues: 1. Whether the surplus land should be determined based on the land held by the original holders as on the appointed day (26-1-1962) or whether it should be determined based on the land held by the heirs or legatees of the deceased holders. 2. Whether there is an obligation on the heirs or legatees to file returns in respect of the property held by the deceased holder.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Ceiling Act does not provide for the substitution of legal representatives of deceased holders. 2. There is no obligation on the heirs or legatees to file returns in respect of the property held by the deceased holder. 3. The surplus land is to be determined with respect to the property held by the heirs or legatees.
Final Decision: The orders of the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (in Special Civil Application No. 1026/66) and or the Assistant Collector (in Special Civil Application No. 170/68) are quashed and set aside. The respective cases are sent to the Deputy Collector and the Assistant Collector who will deal with these cases in accordance with law and proceed on the basis that the heirs or the legatees are the persons in respect of whom the ceiling area is to be determined and the surplus land declared. The returns which can be called from the heirs and legatees will be their individual returns and not joint returns.

JUDGMENT - Padhye, J.

1. The facts in the two cases slightly differ, but that does not make any difference in the legal position to be considered in these two cases and hence both these special civil applications are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In Special Civil Appln. No, 1026 of 1966 one Parwatabai, wife of Pundlikrao Gawande, owned 114 acres and 38 acres of land at various village in taluq Akot, District Akola The ceiling area for dry crops land in this area is 78 acres. That was the land held by Parwatabai as on 4-8-1959 and she continued to hold the same till 26-1-1962. Parwatabai submitted the return, as required by Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Ceiling Act) on 26-7-1962. On this return enquiry was started by the Deputy Collector, Akot and during the pendency of this enquiry, the holder Parwatabai died on 3-9-1963, Before her death, however, she executed a will on 1-9-1963 under which the present petitioners Dadarao, sons of Kashiram and Janabai wife of Rambhau were made the legatees of this area. On the death of Parwatabai Janabai and Dadarao both contended that each of them held an area less than the ceiling area and no land which was originally held by Parwatabai was liable to be declared as surplus land. As regards Parwatabai the surplus land which could be delimited came to 38 acres and 4 gunthas in accordance with Section 21 of the Ceiling Act. The Deputy Collector rejected the contention of the petitioners and took the view that the devolution of the property on the petitioners by the will dated 1-9-1963 could not be taken into consideration and the surplus area will have to be determined on the basis that the original holder Parwatabai was still alive. On this view, the Deputy Collector delimited 38 acres 4 gunthas of land as detailed by him in his order dated 18th October 1965 in the last paragraph as surplus.

3. The petitioners challenged this order by way of appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 16th September 1966 took the view that the ceiling area had to be determined for the persons who held the surplus land as on 26-1-1962 and the surplus land had to be determined in respect of that person. It was held that the will dated 1-9-1963 executed by Parwatabai will operate only with respect to the ceiling area held by her and subject to the delimitation of the surplus area under Section 21 of the Act". It was further observed that

"If Parwatabai had been alive today the will dated 1-9-1963 executed by her would not have enabled her to escape the provisions of the Ceiling Act relating to loss of the surplus land to her and she would not have had any defence whatsoever to the delimitation of 38 acres and 4 gunthas of her land as surplus."

It was also observed that her death during the pendency of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act does not enable her legatees to claim the lands which Parwatabai herself would have lost as surplus land under Section 21 of the Act. Before the Revenue Tribunal, the petitioners had also urged that by reason of the death of Parwatabai during the enquiry proceedings, the proceedings for delimitation of the land abated and the proceedings which were started on the return of Parwatabai would not continue. The contention, it appears, was that after the death of Parwatabai only the legatees were obliged to file the returns in respect of their own property including the property they received under the will if such property held by them was in excess of the ceiling area. This contention was also negatived by the Revenue Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed. These orders are challenged by the petitioners in this special civil application.

4. In Special Civil Application No. 170 of 1968, one Vasantarao Dajipant Kahate was the holder of about 400 acres and 20 gunthas of land on 4-8-1959 and continued to hold the same on 26-1-1962, the appointed day. He filed a r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document