The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correctly interpreting the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961, particularly regarding the deemed partition of land among family members and the determination of surplus land.

(B.R. Gavai, J.)

1. The appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29th July, 1998 thereby dismissing the petition filed by the present appellants challenging the order passed by the respondent no.2 by which they had challenged the order dated 15 th June, 1994 passed by the respondent no.3 declaring 63 acres of land of the appellants as surplus land.

2. One Dadaji Deorao Mahalle is the original land owner. He had his wife Kausalyabai and two sons namely Janrao and Haribhau. It appears that in a Ceiling Case No.93/60-A(5)/1964-65 it was pleaded by the appellants that there was a partition amongst them, however, the learned Surplus Land Determination Tribunal vide order dated 1st January, 1988 held that the said partition was hit by the provisions of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short ‘Act’). It was, therefore, held that the land holder Dadaji Deorao Mahalle (since expired) was entitled to hold 108 acres of land and 0.50 acres was declared to be surplus. It appears that being arrived thereby the legal heirs of the said Dadaji, preferred a revision before the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned MRT vide judgment and order dated 14th December, 1988 remanded the matter for the consideration afresh to the Sub-Divisional Officer. On remand, the S.D.O. Vide order dated 24th August, 1992 upheld the order of the then S.D.O. dated 1st January, 1988. Vide corrigendum dated 26th February, 1993 the surplus land was declared to be 12.84 acres. However, it appears that after the amendment to the said Act, which came into effect from 2nd of October, 1975 fresh returns were filed by the land holders.

3. The respondent no.3 vide order dated 30 th September, 1993 held 30.50 acres land as surplus. Vide another order dated 5th January, 1994 it was held that the holding of said Dadaji was less than ceiling and as such no surplus land was declared. Again vide order dated 15th Jun, 1994 nine acres of land came to be declared as surplus. It appears that suo-motu a revision was taken by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 30th August 1997 held 63 acres of land as surplus. Being aggrieved thereby, a petition was preferred before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The said petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

4. Mr. Gorde, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the view taken by the Additional Commissioner that there is a surplus land is contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, it will have to be deemed that there is a partition in the family amongst major members and each member would be entitled to retain the land as per the permissible ceiling and only after doing so if there remains any land in excess, the same can be declared as surplus. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Indubai w/o Mahadeorao Mahajan and another V/s. the State of Maharashtra reported in 1987 Mh.L.J. 974 , judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Kamlabai w/o Govindrao and others V/s. State of Maharashtra reported at 1977 Mh.L.J. 450 and in case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Anjanabai Shankarrao Deshmukh and others reported in 2004 (4) Mh.L.J.503 .

5. Mr. Pathan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the contrary, submits that the Additional Commissioner has rightly passed the order. He submits that once there was a partition in a family of Dadaji, his sons Haribhau and Janrao were not entitled to any share in his land and therefore, the order passed by the learned S.L.D.T. has been rightly passed. The learned AGP relies on the judgment of Rambhau V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 74 . The learned AGP fur