http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6727-6728 of 2001

PETITIONER: AMBADAS SITARAM MORE

RESPONDENT: MURLIDHAR DIGAMBER AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/04/2005

BENCH: B.P.SINGH & S.B.SINHA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

       In these appeals by special leave the appellant claiming to be a  tenant under the Bombay Tenancy Act has impugned the judgment and  order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.568  of 2000 whereby the High Court affirmed the revisional order passed by  the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 26.11.1999 whereby  he had allowed the Revision Petition filed by the respondent landlord.   

       It appears from the record placed before us that an application  was filed by the appellant herein under Section 32G of the Bombay  Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for fixation of the price of the  lands which the appellant                                                  ...2/-

                       -2-

tenant was entitled to purchase. The Additional Tahsildar by his Order  dated 10th June, 1991 allowed the application and fixed the price of the  lands in question which measured 7 hectares and 71 ares.

       The respondent landlord preferred an appeal which came to be  disposed of by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the appellate authority, in  Tenancy Appeal No.46 of 1991 by Order dated 22nd May, 1995. The  Appellate Authority concurring with the finding recorded by the  Tehsildar dismissed the appeal.

       The landlords then preferred a revision before the Maharashtra  Revenue Tribunal, Pune on 31.7.1995 and the said Revision Petition was  allowed. The Tribunal recorded two main findings. It held that the  partition effected in the family of the tenant in the year 1956 was effected  only to defraud and defeat the provisions of the Tenancy Act as well as  the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. It  also held that Sitaram More, the original tenant who was the landholder,  and on whose behalf a return was filed in the year 1975, had shown 102  acres of                                                  ...3/-

                       -3-

lands in his possession. The Tribunal held that the Tehsildar as well as  the Appellate Authority did not carefully peruse the record of  proceedings and having over looked them recorded findings which could  not be sustained. Since the ceiling area under the Tenancy Act was only  48 acres and under the Maharashtra Ceiling Act as 54 acres, on the basis  of the return filed by the tenant it could not be disputed that he possessed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

lands which were far in excess of the ceiling area under either of the two  Acts. He, therefore, set aside the order of the Tehsildar as well as the  Appellate Authority and declared that the tenant was not entitled to  purchase the lands in question.

       The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal before the  High Court. It appears from the order of the High Court that an argument  was advanced before the High Court that the partition could not be held  to be a mere device to defraud the provisions of the Tenancy Act and the  authorities had not considered the circumstances in which such a partition  was effected as early as in the year 1956. It was contended before the  High Court that in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction the Tribunal  ought not to                                                 ...4/-  

                       -4-

have set aside the findings of the authorities under the Act and dismiss  the application for purchase of the lands in question. From the judgment  of the High Court it does not appear that any argument was advanced  before the High Court that the finding of the Tribunal that the tenant held  land in excess of the ceiling area, and that on his showing he held land to  the extent of 102 acres, was erroneous.

       Mr. Bhimrao N. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing on  behalf of the appellant submitted that this was a case in which the  Tribunal ought not to have set aside the concurrent findings of the  authorities under the Act, and at best it could have remanded the matter  for a clear finding on the question as to what was the holding of the  tenant on the postponed date, namely 7th January, 1970. He also  submitted that in the proceedings under the Ceiling Act it was held that  the tenant held lands in excess to the extent of 15 hectares 43 ares and  pursuant thereto the surplus lands to the extent of 15 hectares 43 ares =  38 acres 23 guntas were in fact surrendered to the landlords. Therefore,  what remained in possession of the tenant was only 54 acres of land.  Under the Tenancy Act he was                                                 ...5/-

                       -5- entitled to retain to the extent of 48 acres, and at best he could be  deprived of 6 acres of land.

       Mr.Makarand D. Adkar, counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondent landlord submitted that the finding recorded under the  Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 was  immaterial. The findings in those proceedings were recorded on 29th  March, 1976, and subsequently the appellant may have surrendered lands  in favour of the landlord. The question which arose for consideration in  the instant matter was as to the holding of the land-holder on dated 7th  January, 1970. In view of the fact that a return was filed showing 102  acres in his possession in the year 1975 established the fact that he held  lands in excess of the ceiling area. The Tribunal was therefore, justified  in allowing the revision petition. He further submitted that it appears  from the order of the High Court. and even from the Writ Petition filed  before the High Court that the appellant had never challenged the finding  of the Tribunal that he held lands in excess of the ceiling area, namely he  had lands to the extent of 102 acres  as evident from the return filed on  his behalf in the year 1975.                                                 ...6/-                         -6-

       We have considered the submissions urged on behalf of the  parties and perused the orders of the authorities under the Act as well as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

by the High Court. While it is true that  the finding that the partition was  effected to defeat the provisions of the Tenancy Act is not based on any  evidence on record, at least none is disclosed in the order of the Tribunal,  the other finding namely that the tenant was in possession of lands far in  excess of the ceiling area is based on evidence which cannot be  challenged, namely the admission of the tenant himself in his return filed  in the year 1975 that he held 102 acres of land. Such being the factual  position, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court.         The appeals are accordingly dismissed.