JUDGEMENT :- The appellant before me in this first appeal, since deceased, was the plaintiff in the trial Court who had filed the suit in question for declaration that the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Ceiling), Nanded, dated 31st August 1965, holding that the plaintiff was a surplus holder of an area to the extent of 52 acres and 39 Gunthas of land was illegal, null and void. He also attacked that part of the same order by virtue of which the Deputy Collector did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to select Survey Nos. 76, 77 and 31/A ad-measuring 59 acres and 65 Gunthas in all to be declared as surplus area. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court. Hence this appeal.

In this appeal initially Mr. Deo struggled to contend that the said piece of land under Survey Nos. 76, 77 and 31/A could not be said to be belonging to the plaintiff having regard to the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In the alternative, he contended that even assuming that those lands were not the separate property of the plaintiff's wife and even assuming that those lands were to be included in the total area of land held by the plaintiff for determining surplus land held by him in the context of the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Ceiling Act) still it was incumbent upon the Deputy Collector to give a chance to the plaintiff to treat these lands as surplus lands. He contended that in the instant case no such chance was given to the plaintiff and that, hence, the order of the Deputy Collector treating such land, Survey Nos. 114, 60, 43/B and a portion of Survey No. 40, is illegal.

2. The question arises in the following circumstances :-

There is no dispute that Survey Numbers 76, 77 and 31/A and various other lands at one time belonged to the plaintiff and his entire holding of all the lands which were 10 in number admeasured 148 acres and 29 Gunthas. It is the plaintiff's case that in or about the year 1953 there were certain matrimonial bickerings between himself and his wife and, hence, the three lands Survey No. 76 (22 Acres), No. 77 (35 Acres, 21 Gunthas) and No. 31/A (7 Acres, 24 Gunthas) were given by him in the possession of his wife for maintenance. It is his case that he got necessary mutation entries in the record of rights made by virtue of which his wife was shown as the Kabjedar from that year. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in the year 1955, he became ill and, hence, he called back his wife and that she started living with him once again. It is his further case that thereafter his wife entered into an agreement for sale of the abovementioned lands Survey Nos. 76 and 77 with defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The entire consideration was received and the possession of the lands was handed over to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 6-7-1959 plaintiff's wife obtained permission from the Deputy Collector for sale of these lands and on 31-7-1959 two sale deeds were executed by her in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Exh.59 is the sale deed executed by her in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of Survey No. 76 and Exh.57 is the sale deed executed by her in favour of defendant No. 3 in respect of Survey No. 77.

To complete the chronology of events, it may be stated here that the Ceiling Act came into effect thereafter. Under the said Act 4-8-1959 was the notified date. A notice dated 21-2-1962, was, thereafter, sent by the Deputy Collector to the plaintiff under the said Act for investigation into the question of surplus holdings, if any, held by him. By the said notice, the plaintiff was called upon to submit his return in that respect on 26-11-62. In his return he did not show the abovementioned three lands Survey Nos. 76, 77 and 31-/A to be part of his holdings on the relevant date. Thereafter, on 23-4-1964 a notice was given to him by the Deputy Collector r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document