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

PETITIONER: ARJUNA & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/05/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (3)  19 1995 SCALE  (3)692

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           O R D E R      The High  Court allowed  the appeal  on the ground that the private  respondents are  within the  ceiling limit and, therefore, allotment  of the surplus land to the respondents is illegal. In ground No. 5 of the special leave petition it was specifically  pleaded that  the respondents are declared to be  a surplus  holder and the excess land was assigned to the appellants.  By order  dated  March  22,  1995,  we  had directed both the parties to produce the return filed by the respondents.  The   appellants  were  directed  to  get  the certified copy of the said return as well as the copy of the return filed by the respondents.      It is  stated  by  Dr.  N.N.  Ghatate,  learned  senior counsel  for   the  respondents,   that  through   Mr.  S.V. Deshpande, the  learned  instructing  counsel,  had  written letters to  the party  he has not received any response. Mr. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, stated that they could not procure the certified copy.      In that  view of  the matter, ground No. 5 has remained undisputed. The  appeal is,  accordingly,  allowed  on  that terms and  the order of the High Court is set aside. In case the respondents  were declared  to  be  within  the  ceiling limit, liberty  is given  to them  to file a review petition within a period of two months from today. No costs.