The criteria for allotment of surplus land to an ex-serviceman should be considered independently of any income criteria, as prescribed in Explanation (b) to Section 27(10) of the Ceiling Act.

JUDGMENT

Sunil B. Shukre, J. - Heard Shri N. S. Bhattad, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri N. R. Patil, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.

2. The facts of the case which are established on record may be summarized as below :

(i) The petitioner is an ex-serviceman and being so, the petitioner applied on 26.04.1999 for allotment of agricultural land declared to be surplus under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agriculture Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short 'Ceiling Act'). The application of the petitioner was processed and after a proper scrutiny, the application was allowed by Tahsildar Kuhi, District Nagpur. Tahsildar Kuhi allotted 0.95 R. land from out of Khasra No.78/1, Mouza Pimpri, Nagpur to the petitioner in the category of ex-serviceman. This category was the category as explained in Explanation (b) to Section 27(10) of the Ceiling Act.

(ii) After few months since the allotment was made to the petitioner, some complaints were received by the Collector, Nagpur. The complaint alleged that in making allotments of surplus lands to various agriculturists, irregularities had been committed and the allotments were required to be reviewed. The Collector directed an inquiry into the matter and called for the report of the Deputy Collector. Accordingly, Deputy Collector made inquiry and submitted his report which was of the date, 05.05.2000. The report contained details of the lands in respect of which, serious irregularities were committed in making allotment of the lands to various beneficiaries. The Collector considered the report and examined the issue. The Additional Collector examined this issue and agreed with the findings noted in the Inquiry Report and accordingly, cancelled some of the allotments made to the beneficiaries which were specifically mentioned in the order passed in this regard by the Additional Collector on 02.06.2000.

(iii) As the order dated 02.06.2000 included also the land allotted to the petitioner and the cancellation of the allotment was made by the order, the petitioner challenged the order by filing a Writ Petition No.2583 of 2000 before this Court. The only ground that was taken by the petitioner was that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Writ Petition No.2583 of 2000 was allowed by the Division Bench on 28.08.2000. The Division Bench remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector for consideration afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was heard by the Additional Collector and rejected the contention of the petitioner that the allotment of the subject land made to the petitioner could not have been cancelled. The Additional Collector found that the annual income of the petitioner exceeded an amount of Rs.12,000/- per annum and therefore, in accordance with the condition of Explanation (c) to Section 27(10) of the Ceiling Act, the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of any agricultural land which was declared to be surplus land.

(iv) Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed another petition bearing Writ Petition No.2856 of 2006. This petition was rejected on merits of the mater although the petitioner could not be heard, he being absent on the date of hearing. This petition was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court who opined that as the annual income of the petitioner at the relevant time was more than Rs.60,300/-, much more than the benchmark of Rs.12,000/- per annum, the petitioner was not eligible to be the beneficiary of distribution of the surplus land in accordance with Explanation (c) to Section 27(10) of the Ceiling Act.

(v) The petitioner questioned the said judgment dated 18.01.2011 by filing a review application contending that the petitioner was not heard and that no consideration was accorded by the learned Single Judge to the contention that the income criteria of Rs.12,000/- per annum was not applicable to the petitioner, he being an ex-serviceman. The learned Single