JUDGMENT - GAVAI B.R., J.: - The present petition impugns the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal dated 30-4-2002 in Revenue Case No. 2/LND-32/98-99 Wadgaon, later on changed to Revenue Case No. 1/LND-26/2001-02. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under:-

2. That the field Gut No. 78/2 situated at Mouza Wadgaon, District Yavatmal admeasuring area of 1 hectare 27 acres was allotted to one Shri Tukaram L. Shelke under the provisions of section 27 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act"). That according to the petitioner, said Tukaram Shelke cultivated the said lands and acquired the status of occupants Class I. It is the case of the petitioner that said Shri Tukaram was maternal uncle of the petitioner and, therefore, on 16-1-1990, said Shri Tukaram by a registered Will bequeathed the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner. Said Shri Tukaram died on 29-12-1998. The Sub-Divisional Officers, Yavatmal has passed order on 26-7-2001, thereby forfeiting the aforesaid land to the Government, on the ground that prior permission of the Collector under section 29(3) of the Ceiling Act was not obtained, for transfer by Will by the allottee, in favour of the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned S.D.O. dated 26-7-2001, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, being Appeal No. ALC.A-17/01. The learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by order dated 23-1-2002, remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh enquiry. The learned M.R.T. also directed the petitioner to obtain the heirship certificate from the Competent Court, within a period of six months, from the date of the order, failing which it was to be presumed that the claim of the petitioner of being legal heir was not correct. In pursuance of the said order, the proceedings have been remanded to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal, before whom the petitioner made an application for fixing the date for evidence. The petitioner in the said application, submitted that he wants to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of his submission. However, the learned S.D.O. vide his order dated 30-4-2002 rejected the application at the state of presentation, as the directions given by the learned M.R.T. were not complied with. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approaches this Court by way of present petition.

4. Shri M.G. Bhangde, the learned Counsel for petitioner, contended that the provisions of section 29(3) of the said Act, were not applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the transfer contemplated under section 29 of the Ceiling Act, does not contemplate transfer by Will. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of (Vimalabai Govind Juverkar v. State of Maharashtra others)1, reported in 1976 Mh.L.J. 358. Shri Bhangde further submitted that in view of the provisions of section 213 read with section 57 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Succession Act), when a right as executor or legatee is to be established in respect of an immovable property, it was not necessary to obtain a probate of the Will under which the right is claimed. In view of this submission, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of (Jyoti Jagdish Singhai v. State of Maharashtra)2, reported in 1979 Mh.L.J. 308.

5. On the contrary, Shri D.B. Patel, the learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent State, submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not a competent Court to decide regarding the validity of the Will and that the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the same lies with the Civil Court. He, therefore, submits that the learned M.R.T. has rightly directed the petitioner to obtain the heirship certificate and has further directed that if the petitioner fails to obtain the same

Click Here to Read the rest of this document