JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---The Sub-Divisional Officer, Khamgaon declared 126 acres 7 gunthas of land as surplus with the land-holder Atmaram Patil (the petitioner) under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (the Act). 9 acres 8 gunthas was allowed as potkharab and was not, therefore, calculated in the total holding. The petitioner had claimed exclusion of 35 acres 19 gunthas on that count. Aggrieved by the inclusion of 26 acres 7 gunthas in the total holding, the landholder filed an appeal under section 33 of the Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and applied for stay of further proceedings before the S.D.O. The Tribunal granted limited stay of delimitation of 26 acres and 7 gunthas and permitted the S.D.O. to limit the remaining area of 100 acres declared as surplus with the landholder with his consultation. Aggrieved by that interim order to stay permitting delimitation of 100 acres, the land-holder filed a writ petition which was heard, by the learned Single Judge and dismissed. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge.

2. The land-holder contends that filing of the appeal operates as automatic stay of the whole order appealed against and, therefore, the Tribunal's order granting only a limited stay and not granting complete stay was without jurisdiction. We find it extremely difficult to accept this submission, taking into consideration, the object of the Act, its scheme and also the powers of the Tribunal. Section 33 of the Act provides for appeals. It reads thus :

"33. (1) An appeal against an order or award of the Collector shall lie to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the following cases :---

(1) an order under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 13 not being an order under which a true and correct return complete in all particulars is required to be furnished;

(2) a declaration or any part thereof under section 21;

23-A, an order under section 21-A;

(3) an award under section 25;

(4) an order refusing sanction to transfer or divide land under section 29;

(5) an order of forfeiture under sub-section (3) of section 29;

(6) an amendment of declaration or award under section 37;

and

(7) an order of summary eviction under section 40.

(1-A) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decision, order, declaration or award, may not only support the decision, order, declaration or award, as the case may be, on any of the grounds decided against him, but take cross-objection to the decision, order, declaration or award which he could have taken by way of an appeal :

Provided that, he has filed the objection in the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal within Thirty days from the date of service on him of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or such further time as the Tribunal may see fit to allow; and thereupon the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply in relation to the cross-objection as they apply in relation to the cross-objection under that rule.

(2) Every petition of appeal under sub-section (1), shall be accompanied by a copy of the decision, order, declaration or award, as the case may be, against which the appeal is made.

(3) In deciding such appeal the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall exercise all the powers which a Court has and follow the same procedure which a Court follows, in deciding appeals from the decree or order of an original Court, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."

Sub-section (3) empowers the Tribunal to exercise all the powers which a Court has and enjoins upon it to follow the same procedure which a Court follows in deciding appeals from the decree or order of an original Court, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. While an appeal is provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure by section 96, procedure and power of the Appellate Court is prescribed under Order 41, Rules 1 to 37. Order 41, Rule 5 m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document