http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: BHIKOBA SHANKAR DHUMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHAN LAL PUNCHAND TATHED & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/02/1982

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1982 AIR  865            1982 SCR  (3) 218  1982 SCC  (1) 680        1982 SCALE  (1)127  CITATOR INFO :  R          1985 SC1403  (4)  R          1987 SC  16  (5)  F          1987 SC 173  (4)  F          1989 SC1614  (16)

ACT:      Maharashtra Agricultural  Lands (Ceiling  on  Holdings) Act, 1961, as it stood prior to amendment of Chapters II and III by the Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975-Locus standi of former landlords to  file an  appeal under  the Act-Construction of non-analogous  statutes,  applying  the  doctrine  of  stare decisis, explained-Scope of section 21 as to dropping of the proceedings if  death occurs  of a  person  holding  on  the appointed day  land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed in  the   Act,  after   filing  the   return  and  before  a notification containing  the declaration  regarding  surplus land held  by him is published in the Official Gazette under section 21 of the Act and possession of such surplus land is taken over by the authorities concerned, explained.

HEADNOTE:      Bhikoba,   the   tenant   (the   predecessor   of   the appellants), as  required by  section 12  of the Maharashtra Land Ceiling  Act, filed before the Special Deputy Collector a return  in the  prescribed form  furnishing particulars of land including  the extent  of 21  acres 28  guntas  bearing Survey No.  34 in  his possession on the appointed day, that is, January  26, 1962.  After  recording  the  statement  of Bhikoba and  considering all  the  other  relevant  material before him,  the Special Deputy Collector found that Bhikoba was in possession of surplus land to the extent of 132 acres 1 guntas,  as per his order dated March 27, 1965. The appeal filed  by  Bhikoba  was  partly  allowed  by  the  appellate authority by  its order  dated April 13, 1966 and the matter was remanded  to the  Special Deputy  Collector with certain directions. Thereafter  Bhikoba died on January 31, 1969. On June 27,  1969, the  Special Deputy  Collector after hearing the legal  representatives held  that Bhikoba  was a surplus holder of  land to  the extent of 16 acres and 26 guntas. An appeal against  that order filed by the four sons of Bhikoba was dismissed  on November  4, 1970  as premature, since the holders had  not yet  exercised their  choice under  section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

16(2) of  the Act and a declaration under section 21 had not yet been made.      When a notice was issued under section 16 of the Act to the heirs  of Bhikoba to exercise their choice in respect of the land  to be retained by them out of Bhikoba’s holding to the extent  of the  ceiling area, the heirs of Bhikoba filed objections on November 23, 1971 pleading, inter alia, that a holder of  land in  excess of  the ceiling prescribed by the Act would  be divested of his title to the surplus land only when its possession was taken from him after the publication of the  notification under  section 21  of the Act and since such notification  had not yet been published and possession of the surplus land had not been taken, Bhikoba continued to be the  owner of  the entire land till his death and that as inheritance could  not remain  in abeyance, his heirs at law became entitled to the 219 entire land  and that if a fresh determination was then made there would  be no  surplus land at all in their hands which had to be surrendered. The Special Deputy Collector accepted the plea  of  the  heirs  of  Bhikoba  and  dropped  further proceedings by his order dated March 13, 1973. Respondents 1 to 4,  former landlords,  who would  have become entitled to claim relief under the Act at the time when the distribution of  surplus   land  held   by  Bhikoba   was  taken  up  for consideration preferred  an appeal  against the order of the Special Deputy  Collector dropping  the proceedings,  before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by  its judgment  dated January  31, 1975. A petition filed under  Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay challenging the decision of the Tribunal was allowed by  the High  Court by  its judgment  dated July 30, 1980 and  the matter  was remanded  to  the  Special  Deputy Collector to continue the proceedings commenced on the basis of the  return filed by Bhikoba. Hence the appeal by special leave.      Dismissing the appeal, the Court ^      HELD: 1.  Respondents 1  to 4  had locus standi to file not only  an appeal  before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but also  later on  a petition  under  Article  227  of  the Constitution before the High Court. It is no doubt true that at the  first instance  the land which is declared a surplus land in  the hands  of any  person would  vest in  the State Government under the Land Ceiling Act. But the said land had to  be   distributed  in   accordance  with  the  provisions contained in  Chapter VI  of the  Act.  Any  person  who  is entitled to grant of land under any of the provisions of the Act may  question any  order which  would have the effect of reducing the  extent of  total surplus  land in any village. Respondents 1  to 4  were the  former landlords  of the land bearing Survey  No. 34  which formed  part of the holding of Bhikoba in  the instant  case. They  cannot,  therefore,  be characterised as  just strangers  to these proceedings. [226 F-H, 227 A-B]      2. It  is very  hazardous  to  decide  cases  in  which proprietary rights  arise for  determination on the basis of decisions rendered  under taxation laws which have their own peculiarities. The  Land Ceiling  Act is not one levying tax on the  income during the previous year or previous years or of a  period other than the previous year in the hands of an assessee but  a Law  imposing a  ceiling on the holding of a person or a family as on a specified date. The Act has to be construed in  accordance with its scheme and object which is equitable distribution  of land  in the  hands of  those who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

held land  in excess  of the  ceiling limit on the appointed day, or  those who would acquire subsequently land in excess of the  ceiling or  those who  own lands  which  exceed  the ceiling limit by reason of their conversion into a different class. [227 E-G]      In order to achieve that object the Legislature enacted sections 3  and 4  of the Act declaring that no person could on or  after the  appointed day  hold land  in excess of the ceiling area and compelling every person acquiring or coming into possession of any land in excess of the ceiling area on or after  the appointed  day to  file a  return  before  the Collector furnishing  particulars of  all land  held by him. [227 G-H, 228 A] 220      3. 1.  A close  reading of  the provisions contained in sections 3,  4 and  18 to  21 of  the Land Ceiling Act shows that the  determination of  the extent  of surplus land of a holder has to be made as on the specified date which is made further clear by the following requirements under section 12 of the  Act. If  any person has at any time after the fourth day of  August, 1959  but before  the appointed day held any land (including  any exempted land) in excess of the ceiling area, such person should file a return within the prescribed period from  the appointed  day furnishing  to each  of  the Collectors within whose jurisdiction any land in his holding is  situated,   in  the   form  prescribed   containing  the particulars of all land held by him. If any person acquires, holds or  comes into  possession of  any land (including any exempted land) in excess of the ceiling area on or after the appointed day,  such person  has to  furnish a return within the prescribed  period from the date of taking possession of any land  in excess of the ceiling area. If any person whose land  is  converted  into  another  class  of  land  in  the circumstances described  in section  11-A (formerly numbered as section  11) thereby  causing his  holding to  exceed the ceiling area  then such  person has  to file a return within the prescribed period from the date of such conversion (such date being  a date to be notified in the Official Gazette by the State  Government in respect of any area). [228 F-H, 229 A-B]      3:2. If  a person  is found to be in possession of land in excess  of the  ceiling area at any time after the fourth day of  August, 1959 but before the appointed day, he incurs the liability  to surrender  any  surplus  land  as  on  the appointed day  itself even  though the actual extent of such surplus land  is determined  on a subsequent date. Similarly those who  acquire land  in excess of the ceiling area on or after the  appointed day  would become  liable to  surrender surplus land on the date of taking possession of any land in excess of  the ceiling area. A person whose case falls under section 11-A  of the  Act becomes  liable to  surrender  any surplus land  in his possession as on the date of conversion of land into irrigable land. [229 D-F]      3:3. The  liability to surrender surplus land would not in any  way come  to an  end by  reason of the death of such holder  before   the  actual   extent  of  surplus  land  is determined and notified under section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act, no doubt, states that the title of the holder in the  surplus  land  would  become  vested  in  the  State Government only on such land being taken possession of after a declaration regarding the surplus land is published in the Official Gazette. But the liability to surrender the surplus land, however, relates back to the appointed day in the case of those who fall under section 12(1) (a) of the Act, to the date of  taking possession  of any  land in  excess  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

ceiling area  in the  case of  those who  come under section 12(1) (b)  of the  Act and to the date of conversion of land into a  different class  in the case of those who come under section 12(2)  of the Act. Any other construction would make the Act  unworkable and  the determination  of the extent of surplus land  of a holder ambulatory and indefinite. [229 F- H, 230 A]      3:4. Further,  section 8  of the Act prohibits transfer or partition  of any  land held  by a person holding land in excess of  the ceiling  area on  or after  the appointed day until the  land in excess of the ceiling is determined under the Act.  Section 10  provides that  if any person after the fourth day of August, 1959 but 221 before the appointed day transferred or partitioned any land in anticipation  of or  in order  to  avoid  or  defeat  the objects of the Act or any land is transferred or partitioned in  contravention   of  provisions  of  section  8  then  in calculating the  ceiling area  which that person is entitled to hold  the area  so transferred  or partitioned  should be taken into consideration and land exceeding the ceiling area so calculated  should be  deemed to  be  in  excess  of  the ceiling  area  for  that  holding-notwithstanding  the  land remaining with  him may  not in  fact be  in excess  of  the ceiling area. [230 B-D]      3:5. The  expression ’holding’ used in sections 3, 5, 6 and 10 shows that the statute treats a holding as a unit for purposes of  determination of  surplus  land  which  can  be acquired from  such holding. Section 2(14) which defines the expression ’to  hold land’  as ’to  be  lawfully  in  actual possession of  land as  owner or  tenant’ requires  that the expression  ’holding’   should  be   construed  accordingly. Section 3  of the  Act expressly  imposes  a  limit  on  the holding of agricultural land on the commencement of the Act. The extent  of surplus land which the Government can acquire under the  Act from  a holder  cannot therefore  be made  to depend upon  the date  on which a declaration indicating the extent of  surplus land  is notified in the Official Gazette under section  21 and the date on which such surplus land is taken possession  of. It  cannot be also made to depend upon the holder  who has  incurred the  liability on the relevant date being  alive on  the date  on which  the declaration is made under  section 21  and possession  of surplus  land  is taken. The  proceedings initiated  by a  return filed  by  a holder cannot  be dropped  if  such  holder  dies  before  a declaration is  made under  section 21  and surplus  land is taken possession  of. To  hold otherwise would frustrate the very object and purposes of the Act. [230 D-H]      3:6. The  surplus land  in the  case of a person who at any time after the fourth day of August, 1959 but before the appointed day held any land (including any exempted land) in excess of  the ceiling  area has  got to be determined as on the appointed day even though such person may die before the actual extent  of surplus  land is  determined and  notified under section  21 of  the  Act.  The  persons  on  whom  his ’holding’ devolves on his death would be liable to surrender the surplus  land  as  on  the  appointed  day  because  the liability attached  to the holding of the deceased would not come to  an end  on his  death. The  heirs of  the  deceased cannot be  permitted to  contend to the contrary and allowed to get  more land by way of inheritance that what they would have got  if the  death of  the person had taken place after the publication of the notification under section 21.                                           [231 G-H, 232 A-C]      Raghunath Laxman  Wani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

Ors., [1972] 1 S.C.R. 48, applied.      3:7. The  introduction of  the second  paragraph of the new section  3(2) does not alter the position as to the true legal position  and scope of section 21 of the Act. The said paragraph was  introduced by  way of abundant caution to get over the  possible objection  raised on  the  basis  of  the decision in the case of Dadarao Kashiram. The said paragraph is merely  declaratory of  what the  true legal position had always been  even from the commencement of the Act. The said paragraph  in   the  new   section  3(2)   refers   to   two contingencies-(i) the death of a person who was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit; and (ii) the death 222 of any  member of a family unit owning land in excess of the ceiling on  the appointed day. It provides that the death of the person  or the  death of  a member of the family unit as the case  may be  should be  ignored. The  death of a person after the appointed day also would make no difference so far as the  liability of his holding to part with a surplus land is concerned.[232 F-H, 233 A, E-F]      3:8.  In   the  instant   case,  (i)   the  proceedings commencing with  the return  filed by  Bhikoba could  not be dropped merely  because he  died before  a notification  was issued under  section 21 of the Act. The proceedings have to be continued and the surplus land in the hands of Bhikoba as on  the   appointed  day  should  be  determined  and  taken possession of  in accordance  with law;  (ii) the  heirs  of Bhikoba are  entitled to participate in the said proceedings representing the  estate of  Bhikoba and (iii) they would be entitled as  heirs at  law only  such land  that may  remain after surrendering  the surplus  land as  may be  determined under the Act. [233 G-H, 234 A-B]      Dadaro Kashiram  v. The State of Maharashtra, (1970) 72 Bom. L.R. 246, overruled.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1667 of 1981.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  judgment and  order dated the  30th July,  1980 of  the  Bombay  High  Court  in Special Civil Application No. 1931 of 1975.      U.R. Lalit and Mrs. Jayshree Wad for the Appellants.      Naunit Lal for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.      R.N. Poddar for Respondent No.5.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAH, J.  This  appeal  by  special  leave  is directed against  the judgment and order dated July 30, 1980 of the  High Court  of Judicature at Bombay in Special Civil Application No. 1931 of 1975.      The  question  for  consideration  in  this  appeal  is whether the  proceedings commenced  with  the  filing  of  a return by  a person  holding on  the appointed  day land  in excess of  the ceiling  area prescribed  by the  Maharashtra Agricultural  Lands   (Ceiling  on   Holdings)   Act,   1961 (hereinafter  referred   to  as   the  ’Act’)  would  become infructuous and would have to be dropped if such person dies before a  notification containing  the declaration regarding sur- 223 plus land  held by  him is published in the Official Gazette under section  21 of  the Act and possession of such surplus land is taken over by the authorities concerned.      An extent  of land measuring 21 A, 28 G, bearing Survey

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

No.  34   situated  in  village  Manori,  Taluka  Rahuri  of Ahmednagar district  in the State of Maharashtra belonged to respondents 1 to 4 but was in the possession of their tenant by name  Bhikoba on the date of the commencement of the Act, i.e. January  26, 1962,  which  was  the  appointed  day  as defined by section 2(4) of the Act.      The Act  was passed  for  the  purpose  of  imposing  a maximum limit  (or ceiling)  on the  holding of agricultural land in  the  State  of  Maharashtra;  to  provide  for  the acquisition and  distribution of land held in excess of such ceiling;  and   for  matters  connected  with  the  purposes aforesaid. Section  2(16) of  the Act defined the expression "land" as  land which  was used or capable of being used for purposes of  agriculture and  included  the  sites  of  farm buildings on,  or appurtenant to such land and land on which grass grows  naturally. Chapter  II of the Act contained the provisions (Sections  3 to  7) prescribing  the  ceiling  on holding  of  land,  Chapter  III  contained  the  provisions (Sections 8  to 11)  imposing restriction  on alienation and acquisitions of  land and  laying down  the consequences  of contraventions of  those provisions,  Chapter  IV  contained provisions (Sections 12 to 21) for determining the extent of surplus land, Chapter V contained provisions (Sections 22 to 26)   for   determination   of   compensation   payable   to expropriated persons and Chapter VI which included (Sections 27 to  29) dealt  with the  mode of  distribution of surplus land amongst  those who  were  landless  and  who  otherwise deserved to  be granted land. These and the other provisions in the Act were enacted with the object of providing for the more equitable distribution of agricultural land amongst the peasantry in the State of Maharashtra.      It may  be mentioned  here that  Chapters II and III of the Act came to be substituted by new Chapters II and III by section 4  of the  Maharashtra Act  21 of 1975. Section 5 of the said Act, however, read as follows:           "5.  Notwithstanding   the  substitution   of  the      Chapters II  and III  by section  4  of  this  Act  all      proceedings pending immediately before the commencement      date in  any court  or tribunal or before any authority      for the purpose of 224      determining the ceiling area in respect of any holdings      and the  surplus land  in such holdings in pursuance of      the provisions  in the  original Chapters  II  and  III      shall be  continued and  disposed of  by or  under  the      principal Act,  as if  that Act had not been amended by      the Amending  Act, 1972; and the amount of compensation      for such  surplus land acquired by the State Government      under sub-section  (4), or  as the  case may  be,  sub-      section (5),  of  section  21  shall  be  at  the  rate      provided in the principal Act as unamended by this Act.           After the  ceiling area is determined and the area      delimited as  surplus land  is declared  finally  under      section 21  of the  principal  Act,  then,  subject  as      aforesaid, the  provisions  of  the  principal  Act  as      amended by  this Act  shall apply  to such  holding and      land declared as surplus land."      There was  a  further  modification  made  in  the  new Chapters II  and III  by the  Maharashtra Act 47 of 1975. In view of  the saving  clause contained  in section  5 of  the Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975 reproduced above this case has to be decided  in accordance  with the  provisions contained in Chapters II  and III as they stood before their substitution since the  proceedings  with  which  we  are  concerned  had already commenced  and were  pending immediately  before the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

commencement of  the said Amending Act. Hence reference will be made hereafter to the provisions contained in Chapters II and III as they stood before their substitution.      Section 3  of the Act as it was originally enacted read as follows:           "3. In  order to  provide for  the more  equitable      distribution of agricultural land amongst the peasantry      of the  State of  Maharashtra (and  in  particular,  to      provide that  land-less  persons  are  given  land  for      personal cultivation), on the commencement of this Act,      there shall be imposed to the extent, and in the manner      hereinafter provided,  a maximum  limit (or ceiling) on      the holding of agricultural land throughout the State."      Section 4  of the Act prohibited holding of land by any person in  excess of  the ceiling  area  and  declared  that subject to the pro- 225 visions of  the Act,  all land held by a person in excess of the ceiling  area should  be deemed  to be  surplus land and dealt with  in the manner provided by the Act. Sections 5 to 7 of the Act laid down the principles for the computation of the ceiling area in various cases.      As required by section 12 of the Act as it stood at the commencement of  the Act  Bhikoba, the  tenant concerned  in this  case,   filed  before  the  Special  Deputy  Collector (especially empowered  by the  State Government  to exercise the powers  and perform the functions of the Collector under the  Act)   a  return  in  the  prescribed  form  furnishing particulars of  land including  the extent  of 21  A, 28  G. bearing Survey No. 34 referred to above in his possession on the appointed  day. After recording the statement of Bhikoba and considering  all the  other relevant material before him the Special  Deputy Collector  found  that  Bhikoba  was  in possession of  surplus land to the extent of 132 A. 1 G. and he made an order accordingly on March 27, 1965. Against that order Bhikoba filed an appeal and the appellate authority by its order dated April 13, 1966 partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter with some directions. Thereafter Bhikoba died on  January 31,  1969. On  June 27,  1969, the  Special Deputy Collector  after hearing the legal representatives of Bhikoba held  that Bhikoba  was a  surplus holder of land to the extent  of 16 A. and 26 G. Against that order Daulatram, Triambak, Dattatraya  and Madhukar, the four sons of Bhikoba who are  shown as the legal representatives (a to d) in this case  filed   an  appeal   before  the  Maharashtra  Revenue Tribunal. That  appeal was  dismissed on November 4, 1970 on the ground  that it  was a  premature one as the holders had not yet  exercised their  choice under  section 16(2) of the Act and  a declaration  under section  21 had  not yet  been made. Thereafter a notice was issued to the heirs of Bhikoba under section  16 of  the Act  to exercise  their choice  in respect of  land to  be retained  by them  out of  Bhikoba’s holding to  the extent  of the  ceiling area.  The heirs  of Bhikoba filed  objections to the said notice on November 23, 1971 pleading  inter alia that a holder of land in excess of the ceiling  prescribed by  the Act would be divested of his title to the surplus land only when its possession was taken from him  after the  publication of  the notification  under section 21  of the  Act and  since such notification had not yet been  published and  possession of  surplus land had not been taken,  Bhikoba continued to be the owner of the entire land (including  the extent determined as surplus land) till his death and 226 that as  inheritance could not remain in abeyance, his heirs

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

at law  became entitled  to the  entire land. They contended that if  a fresh  determination was then made there would be no surplus  land at  all in  their hands,  which had  to  be surrendered. They,  therefore, prayed  that the  proceedings which were commenced with the return filed by Bhikoba should be dropped  as they  had  become  infructuous.  The  Special Deputy Collector  accepted the  plea of the heirs of Bhikoba and dropped further proceedings as prayed for by them by his order dated March 13, 1973.      The respondents  1 to  4 who would have become entitled to  claim  relief  under  the  Act  at  the  time  when  the distribution of  surplus land  held by  Bhikoba was taken up for consideration  preferred an  appeal against the order of the Special  Deputy Collector  dropping the  proceedings  as mentioned above before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal by  its judgment  dated January  31, 1975 dismissed the appeal  following the  decision of  the  High  Court  of Bombay (Nagpur  Bench) in  Dadarao Kashiram  v. The State of Maharashtra(1). Aggrieved  by the  decision of the Tribunal, respondents 1 to 4 filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in  Special Civil  Application No. 1931 of 1975 before the  High Court  of Bombay. That petition was allowed by the  High Court  by its  judgment dated  July 30, 1980 by which the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Special Deputy Collector to continue the proceedings commenced  on the  basis of  the return filed by Bhikoba in  the presence  of his  legal  representatives  to determine the  surplus  land  held  by  Bhikoba  as  on  the appointed day  and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. This  appeal by  special leave  is  filed  against  the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.      There is  no merit  in the  first contention  urged  in support of the above appeal viz. that respondents 1 to 4 had no locus  standi to  file an appeal against the order of the Special Deputy  Collector dated  March 13, 1973 dropping the proceedings  which   commenced  with  the  return  filed  by Bhikoba. It  is no doubt true that at the first instance the land which  is declared  as surplus land in the hands of any person would vest in the State Government. But the said land has to  be distributed  in accordance  with  the  provisions contained in  Chapter VI  of the  Act.  Any  person  who  is entitled to 227 grant of  land under  any of  the provisions  of the Act may question any  order which  would have the effect of reducing the extent of total surplus land in any village. Respondents 1 to  4 were the former landlords of the land bearing Survey No. 34  which formed  part of  the holding  of Bhikoba. They cannot, therefore,  be characterised  as just  strangers  to these  proceedings.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  said  that respondents 1  to 4  had no  locus standi  to file an appeal before the  Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and then a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court. This contention is, therefore, rejected.      The next  contention of  the appellants is based on the judgment of  the High  Court of Bombay in Dadarao Kashiram’s case (supra).  It is  no doubt  true that  the said decision supports  the   contention  of   the  appellants   that  the proceedings initiated  by a return filed by a holder of land would be  come infructuous  on his  death if  it takes place before a notification is issued under section 21 of the Act. The said  decision was  rendered by  the High  Court relying upon the  decision of  the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income  Tax v.  Ellis C. Reid(1) and the decision of this Court in  its Commissioner  of Income-Tax,  Bombay  City  v.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

Amarchand N.  Shroff(2) by the heirs & legal representatives both of  which arose  under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. We do  not  have  provisions  corresponding  to  the  Indian Income-tax Act,  1922 in  the Act.  It is  very hazardous to decide  cases   in  which   proprietary  rights   arise  for determination on  the  basis  of  decisions  rendered  under taxation laws which have their own peculiarities. The Act is not one  levying tax  on the income during the previous year or previous  years or  of a  period other  then the previous year in  the hands  of an  assessee but  a  law  imposing  a ceiling on  the holding  of a  person or  a family  as on  a specified date.  The Act  has to  be construed in accordance with its  scheme and  object which,  as stated  earlier,  is equitable distribution  of  land  amongst  the  landless  by taking over surplus land in the hands of those who held land in excess  of the  ceiling limit  on the  appointed day,  or those who  would acquire  subsequently land in excess of the ceiling or  those who  own lands  which exceed  the  ceiling limit by  reason of their conversion into a different class. In order  to achieve  that object,  the Legislature  enacted sections 3  and 4  of the Act declaring that no person could on or  after the  appointed day  hold land  in excess of the ceiling area and compelling every person acquiring or coming into possession of any 228 land in excess of the ceiling area on or after the appointed day  to  file  a  return  before  the  Collector  furnishing particulars of  all land  held by him. Section 18 of the Act requires the  Collector to  hold an enquiry into the several matters set  out therein  including the  total area  of land held by a person on the appointed day. Sections 19 and 20 of the Act  provide for  the restoration of land to a land-lord in certain  cases. Section  21 provides that, as soon as may be, after  the Collector has considered the matters referred to in  section 18  and the  questions, if  any,  under  sub- section (3)  of section  20, he  shall  make  a  declaration stating therein  his decision  on (a) the total area of land which the  person (who  has filed  a return)  is entitled to hold as the ceiling area, (b) the total area and particulars of land which is in excess of the ceiling area, (c) the name of the  person to  whom possession of land is to be restored under section 19, and area and particulars of such land, (d) the area, description and full particulars of the land which is  delimited   as  surplus   land  and  (e)  the  area  and particulars of  land which  is to  be forfeited to the State Government under  sub-section (3) of section 10 or under the provisions of  sub-section (3)  of section  13 of  the  Act. After a  declaration under  sub-section (1) of section 21 is made, as  stated above,  the Collector  has to notify in the prescribed  form   in  the   Official  Gazette   the   area, description and  full  particulars  of  the  land  which  is delimited as  surplus land, and also of the land which is to be forfeited  to the  State Government. Any declaration made under section  21 of  the Act  is subject to the decision of the Maharashtra  Revenue Tribunal  in appeal  and subject to any decision  that may be made in such appeal, the Collector is empowered to take possession of the surplus land and with effect from the date of taking over possession, such surplus land vests in the State Government.      A close  reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act shows that  the determination  of the extent of surplus land of a  holder has  to be made as on the appointed day. If any person has  at any time after the fourth day of August, 1959 but before  the appointed  day held  any land (including any exempted land)  in excess  of the  ceiling area, such person

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

should file  a return  within the prescribed period from the appointed day  furnishing to  each of  the Collectors within whose jurisdiction  any land  in his holding is situated, in the form  prescribed containing  the particulars of all land held by  him. If  any person  acquires, holds  or comes into possession of any land including any exempted land in excess of the ceiling area on or after the appointed day, such 229 person has  to furnish  a return  as stated above within the prescribed period  from the date of taking possession of any land in excess of the ceiling area. If any person whose land is converted into another class of land in the circumstances described in section 11-A (formerly numbered as section (11) thereby causing  his holding to exceed the ceiling area then such person  has to  file a return as mentioned above within the prescribed period from the date of such conversion (such date being  a date to be notified in the Official Gazette by the State  Government in respect of any area). It is obvious from the  foregoing requirements prescribed under section 12 of the Act that the crucial date with reference to which the extent of  the surplus  land held  by  a  person  is  to  be determined is  the appointed  day in  the  case  of  persons holding land in excess of the ceiling area at any time after the fourth  day of August, 1959 but before the appointed day and in  the case  of those acquiring, holding or coming into possession of  such excess  land on  or after  the appointed day, the day on which they acquire possession of any land in excess of  the ceiling  area. In  the case  of those who are affected by section 11-A of the Act, the crucial date is the date of conversion. If a person is found to be in possession of land  in excess of the ceiling area at any time after the fourth date of August, 1959 but before the appointed day, he incurs the liability to surrender any surplus land as on the appointed day  on the  appointed day  itself even though the actual extent  of such  surplus  land  is  determined  on  a subsequent date.  Similarly those who acquire land in excess of the  ceiling area  on or  after the  appointed day  would become liable  to surrender  surplus land  on  the  date  of taking possession of any land in excess of the ceiling area. A person  whose case  falls under  section 11-A  of the  Act becomes  liable   to  surrender  any  surplus  land  in  his possession as  on  the  date  of  conversion  of  land  into irrigable land.  This liability  to surrender  surplus  land would not  in any  way come to an end by reason of the death of such  holder before  the actual extent of surplus land is determined and  notified under  section 21 of the Act. It is no doubt  true that  section 21  of the  Act states that the title of  the holder in the surplus land would become vested in the  State Government  only  on  such  land  being  taken possession of after a declaration regarding the surplus land is published  in the  Official Gazette. But the liability to surrender the  surplus land,  however, relates  back to  the appointed day  in the  case of  those who fall under section 12(1)(a) of the Act, to the date of taking possession 230 of any  land in  excess of  the ceiling  area in the case of those who  come under section 12(1)(b) of the Act and to the date of  conversion of  land into  a different  class in the case of  those who  come under section 12(2) of the Act. Any other construction  would make  the Act  unworkable and  the determination of  the extent  of surplus  land of  a  holder ambulatory and  indefinite. It is significant that section 8 of the  Act prohibits transfer or partition of any land held by a person holding land in excess of the ceiling area on or after the  appointed day  until the  land in  excess of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

ceiling is  determined under  the Act.  Section 10  provides that if  any person  after the  4th day  of August, 1959 but before the appointed day transferred or partitioned any land in anticipation  of or  in order  to  avoid  or  defeat  the objects of the Act or any land is transferred or partitioned in  contravention   of  provisions  of  section  8  then  in calculating the  ceiling area  which that person is entitled to hold  the area  so transferred  or partitioned  should be taken into consideration and land exceeding the ceiling area so calculated  should be  deemed to  be  in  excess  of  the ceiling  area  for  that  holding-notwithstanding  the  land remaining with  him may  not in  fact be  in excess  of  the ceiling area.  The expression  ’holding’ used in sections 3, 5, 6  and 10  shows that  the statute  treats a holding as a unit for purposes of determination of surplus land which can be acquired  from such  holding. Section 2(14) which defines the expression  to hold  land’ as  ’to be lawfully in actual possession of  land as  owner or  tenant’ requires  that the expression  ’holding’   should  be   construed  accordingly. Section 3  of the  Act expressly  imposes  a  limit  on  the holding of agricultural land on the commencement of the Act. The extent  of surplus land which the Government can acquire under the  Act from  a holder  cannot therefore  be made  to depend upon  the date  on which a declaration indicating the extent of  surplus land  is notified in the Official Gazette under section  21 and the date on which such surplus land is taken possession  of. It  cannot also be made to depend upon the holder  who has  incurred the  liability on the relevant date being  alive on  the date  on which  the declaration is made under  section 21  and possession  of surplus  land  is taken. The  acceptance of  the contention urged on behalf of the appellant  that the  proceedings initiated  by a  return filed by  a holder  have to  be dropped  if such holder dies before a  declaration is  made under  section 21 and surplus land is  taken possession of would frustrate the very object and purposes of the Act. 231      In Raghunath Laxman Wani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,(1)  this Court  had to examine the scheme of the Act while considering  the question  whether in  the case  of  a family, the  ceiling area  would be  liable to  fluctuations with the  subsequent increase  or decrease  in number of the family  members.   Dealing  with  that  question  the  Court observed thus:           "The scheme  of the  Act seems  to be to determine      the ceiling  area of  each person  (including a family)      with reference  to the appointed day. The policy of the      Act appears  to be  that on and after the appointed day      no person  in the State should be permitted to hold any      land in  excess of the ceiling area as determined under      the Act  and that  ceiling area  would be that which is      determined as on the appointed day. Therefore, if there      is a  family consisting  of persons  exceeding five  in      number on  January 26,  1962, the ceiling area for that      family would  be the  basic ceiling  are a  plus  1/6th      thereof per  member in  excess of  the number five. The      ceiling  area   so  fixed   would  not   be  liable  to      fluctuations with  the subsequent  increase or decrease      in the number of its members, for, there is, apart from      the explicit language of secs. 3 and 4, no provision in      the  Act  providing  for  the  redetermination  of  the      ceiling area of a family on variations in the number of      its  members.  The  argument  that  every  addition  or      reduction in  the number  of the  members of  a  family      requires redetermination  of the ceiling area of such a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

    family would  mean an almost perpetual fixation and re-      fixation  in   the  ceiling   area   by   the   Revenue      authorities, a  state of  affairs hardly  to have  been      contemplated by  the legislature.  The  argument  would      also  mean   that  where  a  surplus  area  is  already      determined and  allotted to  the land less persons such      area would have to be taken back and given to a family,      the number  of whose members subsequently has augmented      by fresh births."      The above view supports our conclusion that the surplus land in  the case  of a  person who  at any  time after  the fourth day of August, 1959 but before the appointed day held any land  (including any  exempted land)  in excess  of  the ceiling area  has got  to be  determined as on the appointed day even though such person may 232 die before  the actual  extent of surplus land is determined and notified  under section  21 of  the Act.  The persons on whom his  ’holding’ devolves on his death would be liable to surrender the  surplus land  as on the appointed day because the liability  attached to the holding of the deceased would not come  to an  end on his death. The heirs of the deceased cannot be  permitted to  contend to the contrary and allowed to get  more land by way of inheritance than what they would have got  if the  death of  the person had taken place after the publication of the notification under section 21.      At this  stage it  is necessary  to  refer  to  another contention of  the appellants  based on the second paragraph of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the new Chapter II of the Act which  is substituted  in  the  place  of  the  original Chapter II  by the  Maharashtra Act 21 of 1975. The relevant part of the said paragraph reads:           "In determining surplus land from the holding of a      person, or  as the  case may  be, of a family unit, the      fact that  the person  or any member of the family unit      has died (on or after the commencement date or any date      subsequent to the date on which the holding exceeds the      ceiling area,  but before  the declaration  of  surplus      land is  made in  respect of  that  holding)  shall  be      ignored; and  accordingly, the  surplus land  shall  be      determined as  if that  person, or  as the case may be,      the member of a family unit had not died."      It is  contended that  because for  the first  time the Legislature by introducing the above said paragraph directed that if  a person dies after the commencement of the Act but before the declaration of surplus land is made in respect of his holding, the fact of his death should be ignored and the surplus land  should be determined as if that person had not died, it should be held that before the introduction of that paragraph the  proceedings needed to be dropped on the death of the  person taking place before the declaration was made. It appears  to us  that the said paragraph was introduced by way of  abundant caution  to get over the possible objection raised on  the basis  of the decision in the case of Dadarao Kashiram. The  said paragraph  is merely declaratory of what the true  legal position  had  always  been  even  from  the commencement of  the Act.  The introduction  of  an  express provision to  the above  effect does  not have the effect of altering the  true legal  position as  explained by us above even without the aid of such express provision. This becomes 233 further clear from the observations found in the decision of this Court  in Raghunath  Laxman Wani’s case (supra). It may be noticed  that the  said paragraph in the new section 3(2) refers to  two contingencies  -(i) the death of a person who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit and (ii) the death of  any member  of a family unit owning land in excess of the  ceiling on  the appointed  day. It provides that the death of  the person  or the death of a member of the family unit as  the case  may be  should be  ignored.  One  of  the contentions urged  before this  Court in  that case was that the Tribunal  was wrong in not taking into consideration the three children  born in  the family  after the appointed day while determining  the ceiling  area to  which the family of the appellants  therein was entitled to. This Court rejected that plea  and upheld the decision of the Tribunal observing that "the  argument that  every addition or reduction in the number of the members of the family requires redetermination of the  ceiling area  of such  a family would mean an almost perpetual fixation  and re-fixation  in the  ceiling area by the Revenue  authorities, a  state of affairs hardly to have been contemplated  by the  Legislature". This conclusion was reached by  this Court  without the  aid of any provision in the Act  at the  relevant time  corresponding to  the second paragraph of  the new section 3(2) of the Act. This case was no doubt one relating to a claim based on the birth of three children. In  principle it  applies to  the case  where  the number of  members of a family decreases on account of death of any of its members, as observed by the Court. On the same analogy it  has to  be held that the death of a person after the appointed  day also  would make  no difference so far as the liability  of his  holding to part with the surplus land is concerned.  Hence it has to be held that the introduction of the  second paragraph  of the  new section  3(2) does not lead to  any conclusion different from the one which we have reached in this appeal.      In view  of the  foregoing, the  decision of  the  High Court of Bombay in Dadarao Kashiram’s case (supra) cannot be considered as a correct one and we, therefore, overrule it.      The High Court was right in the present case in holding that the  proceedings commencing  with the  return filed  by Bhikoba could not be dropped merely because he died before a notification was  issued under  section 21  of the  Act. The proceedings have to be continued and the surplus land in the hands  of   Bhikoba  as  on  the  appointed  day  should  be determined and taken possession of in 234 accordance with  law. The  heirs of  Bhikoba are entitled to participate in  the said proceedings representing the estate of Bhikoba. They would be entitled as heirs at law only such land that  may remain after surrendering the surplus land as may be determined under the Act.      In  the   result,  the   appeal  fails  and  is  hereby dismissed. No costs. S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 235