JUDGMENT - SIRPURKAR V.S., J.:—This is writ petition on behalf of the original landholder Fulchand Jaiswal. The said landholder is now dead and is being represented by his legal representatives.

2. The original landholder filed a return under section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ceiling Act”). He showed the total holdings of his family to be 58.54 acres. By order dated 11-1-1977 the proceedings were concluded by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal who observed that certain lands were not shown by Fulchand in his return and ultimately it came to be decided that the total holding of Fulchand was 119.88 acres out of which 2.17 acres were excluded as Potkharab area. After allowing the limit of 54.00 acres of land to be retained, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal declared 63.71 acres as surplus land. An appeal was filed against this decision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 5-7-1977 set aside the order on the ground that the notices were not issued to the proper parties who should have in fact been noticed. It also observed that all the persons interested in all the lands were not noticed or heard. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also held that there was no proper publication of the notices in villages and, therefore, a practically de novo enquiry was ordered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The last three lines of the Tribunal's order are telling: “It will further be seen that all the persons interested in the said lands are served with notices under section 17 directing them to file their submissions before it allowing them to lead evidence oral as well as documentary and then pass fresh order according to law. All the points in appeal are kept open.” Accordingly, the matter went back. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal it seems, issued the notices and posted the case by a fresh order dated 30-6-1987 by which again 63.71 acres were declared to be the surplus land. The landholder approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by way of an appeal and mainly contended that no opportunity was given to him for leading the evidence though his witnesses were present and thus the previous order of remand passed by the Maharashtra Revenue, Tribunal was flouted in spirit. The landholder also pointed out that in fact he wanted to lead the evidence to show that the transfers which he had effected of the lands between the years 1972 and 1975 were for the genuine reasons, i.e. his financial stringency on account of his bad health and were not in fact to avoid the provisions of the Ceiling Act. The landholder contended that in fact he was a patient of Diabetes and High Blood Pressure and on account of that he had to spend substantial amounts and in order to meet these expenses he had transferred the lands and not to avoid the incoming provisions of the Ceiling Act. The next point urged by the landholder before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was that the land to the extent of 36.44 acres was acquired by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. He pointed out that 27.30 acres out of the acquired land was thereafter leased out to the petitioner in the year 1975 and that was with retrospective effect, that is to say the lease was to operate from 1969 to 1999. His contention is that, therefore, he was in possession of the land which came in the category of the exempted land. He, therefore contended that the land to that extent could not be included in his ceiling area. By way of the third point, the landholder urged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal had not given him any opportunity to prove the extent of uncultivable or potkharab land. On all the three questions, the appeal of the landholder was turned down by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal necessitating the present writ petition before this Court.

3. As regards the first question of the opportunity,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document