http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: GANPATRAO GULABRAO PAWAR AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1992

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1183            1992 SCR  (2) 466  1993 SCC  Supl.  (1)  87 JT 1992 (2)   463  1992 SCALE  (1)783

ACT:      Maharashtra  Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and  Holdings) Act,  1961-Sections 3,5,9-Legislative  intention-Acquisition of land above ceiling limit-Liable to surrender.      Maharashtra  Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and  Holdings) Act,  1961-Sections 14 to 20, 21, 45-Declaration-When to  be made-Determination  of  land  less  than  ceiling  limit-Not declaration  and not  appealable-Revisionary  power-Exercise of-Whether any bar operates.      Maharashtra  Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and  Holdings) Act,  1961-Sections 3, 14, to 20, 21, 45, read with  Section 11,  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Determination of  surplus land  in  a subsequent  proceedings-Determining  holding  in earlier proceedings-Whether operates as res judicata.      Maharashtra  Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and  Holdings) Act,  1961-Section  45-Suo motu  revision  Determination  of holding-Inclusion   of  the  extent  of  land  received   by exchange-Theory  of exchange disbelieved-Whether the  extent of land to be excluded.

HEADNOTE:      Appellant  No.  1-land  holder filed a  return  of  his holding under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands  (Ceiling  and Holdings), Act,  1961.   The  Collector after  making  inquiry  held that as his  total  holding  of agricultural  lands was 124 acres 23 guntas (converted  into dry  lands)  and having regard to the number of  his  family members the appellant No. 1 was not a surplus holder.      Through the order of the Collector was in favour of the appellant  No.  1,  he filed an appeal  before  the  Revenue Tribunal,  contending that he was not holding 124  acres  23 guntas  of land and that his holding was lesser  than  that. The appeal was dismissed summarily.      Sometime   after  the  disposal  of  the  appeal,   the Additional Commis-                                                        467 sioner  issued a notice u/s.45 of the Act to  the  appellant No.1  calling  upon  him  to  show  cause  as  to  why   the Collector’s order be not revised; his holding be  determined at  231 acres and why the surplus should not be directed  to be surrendered.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

    Appellant  No.  1 submitted  his  objection  u/s.45(2), proviso contending that when an appeal was filed against the order  of the Collector, the power of suo motu revision  was not available to the Commissioner u/s.45 of the Act.      The  Additional Commissioner rejected  the  preliminary objection  and passed an order on merits, holding  that  the holding of lands of the first appellant was 202 acres and 31 guntas  (when  converted into dry crop land),  that  he  was entitled  to retain only an extent of 160 acres and that  he was  a  surplus holder to an extent of 42 acres  31  guntas. The  matter  was remitted to the S.D.O. for  delimiting  the surplus area.      The   appellants   questioned  the  validity   of   the Commissioners’  order by way of a writ petition in the  High Court,  contending  that  inasmuch  as  the  order  of   the Collector  was  appealed  against, it  could  no  longer  be revised  by  the  Commissioner in view of  the  express  bar contained  in the proviso to Section 45(2) and  further  and that  the lands he obtained by way of exchange as  well  his lands  which were given away under the said  exchange,  were both included in his holding.      The  High  Court dismissed the writ  petition,  against which  the  appellants filed this appeal with the  leave  of this Court.      The  appellants contended that the appeal preferred  by the appellant No. 1 before the Revenue Tribunal was a proper and competent appeal.  Though that appeal was dismissed,  it operated  as  a bar to the exercise of  the  revisory  power under Section 45(2), proviso.      The   respondent   submitted   that   an   appeal   was maintainable against the declaration or a part thereof.  The part  which  was not appealed against was open  to  revision under  Section  45(a);  that the  provision  in  Section  33 providing for a right of appeal and the provision of Section 45(2)    conferring    a   supervisory    power    in    the Government/Commissioner  must  be harmonised so as  to  give both  the provisions their due play; that mere rejection  of theory of exchange did not necessarily mean that the  extent in  gut  No.  521 should be excluded  from  the  appellants’ holding when they                                                        468 themselves claim that it was theirs.      Partly allowing the appeal, this Court,      HELD   :  1.01.  The  Maharashtra  Agricultural   Lands (Ceiling  and  Holdings)  Act,  1961  was  enacted  by   the Maharashtra  Legislature  with a view to  impose  a  maximum limit  (ceiling) on the holding of agricultural land in  the State of Maharashtra and to provide for the acquisition  and distribution  of  the land held in excess of  such  ceiling. [472B]      1.02.  The Act is not intended to determine or  declare titles.   The  finding as to the extend of a  holding  of  a person  under the Act is only a step towards its  object  an intermediate stage. [476B]      1.03.  A  person holding agricultural lands  below  the ceiling  limit can acquire land only upto the ceiling  limit but  not  above such limit.  Evidently, acquisition  of  any land  in  excess of such limit is liable to  be  surrendered under the Act. [472D-E]      2.01. Section 21 makes it clear that the  "declaration" contemplated  by  it  is to be made only in the  case  of  a surplus holder.  The declaration has to contain the  various particulars  mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of  sub-section (1).  This  should  be followed by  a  statement  containing particulars of the land delimited as surplus. This statement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

has  to  be  published in the village  and  other  specified places.   Sub-section (3) provides that the Collector  shall take  possession  of  the  surplus  land  soon  after   "the announcement of the declaration", whereupon it shall vest in the  State.  All this shows that no "declaration" is  to  be made  under Section 21 in the case of a  person/family  unit whose holding does not exceed the ceiling limit. [474B-C]      2.02.   An   appeal   is  provided   only   against   a "declaration"  made under Section 21 and not against any  of the   orders   made  under  Section  14  to  20.    A   mere determination  or  a finding or order that  a  person/family unit  holds  land  less  than the ceiling  limit  is  not  a "declaration" and, therefore, not appealable. [476F]      2.03.  Section  45 vests in the  State  Government  the power of control and supervision over the officers under the Act,  which power can be delegated by the Government to  the Commissioner. [475E]      2.04.  The  High Court was right in  holding  that  the order of the                                                        469 Collector  in  the  case  of the  first  appellant  was  not appealable.  The appeal filed by him was one not provided by law  and,  hence,  no appeal in the eye  of  law.   Such  an incompetent  appeal  could  not  operate as  a  bar  to  the exercise of revisory power under Section 45(2). [476F-G]      3.  In the subsequent proceedings for  determining  the surplus   land,  the  order  in  the   earlier   proceedings determining  one’s holding at a particular figure,  may  not operate as res judicata. [477A]      4. It is no one’s case that the appellant acquired  the extent  of 12 acres 24 guntas in gut No. 521 in some  manner other than the exchange put forward by him.  That area ought to be excluded from his holding once the theory of  exchange is  disbelieved and when the extent in gut Nos. 462 and  463 is also included in his holding. [478B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 660  of 1981.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated  26.7.1979  of  the Bombay  High Court in Special Civil Application No.  439  of 1975.      P.H. Parekh for the Appellants.      V.B. Joshi and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. First appellant-land holder filed a return of his holding under as required by the Maharashtra Agricultural  Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961  (Act). After  making the necessary inquiry, the Collector, Pune  by his  order  dated  2nd January, 1969  held  that  the  first appellant’s  total holding of agricultural lands as  on  the relevant  date was 124 acres 23 guntas (converted  into  dry lands) whereas according to the Act and having regard to the number of members in his family he was entitled to hold  128 acres.   Accordingly, he held that the first  appellant  was not  a  surplus holder.  Notwithstanding the fact  that  the said  order was in his favour, the first appellant filed  an appeal   before  the  Maharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal.    His contention was that the finding of the Collector that he was holding 124 acres 23 guntas of land is not correct and  that he  must  be held to be holding a far lesser  extent.   This appeal was dismissed summarily on 16.12.1971.  The  Tribunal did not think it fit to issue a notice

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

                                                      470 even  to the respondent in the said appeal.  Sometime  after the  dismissal of the appeal, the  Additional  Commissioner, Puna  Division issued a notice to the first appellant  under Section  45  calling upon him to show cause as  to  why  the order of the Collector, Poona dated 2nd January, 1969 be not revised  and his holding be determined at 231 acres and  why are  surplus should not be directed to be surrendered.   The first  appellant submitted his objections wherein  he  inter alia raised an objection with respect to the validity of the said notice.  The said objection was based upon the  proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 45 viz., inasmuch as an appeal has been filed against the order of the Collector, the power of  suo  motu  revision  is  no  longer  available  to   the Commissioner.   This preliminary objection was overruled  by the  Additional Commissioner by his order  dated  6.12.1971. He then went into the merits of the case and passed an order on  23.9.1974  holding that the total holding of  the  first appellant  as  on the relevant date is 202 acres  31  guntas (when converted into dry crop land) and since he is entitled to  retain  only  an extent of 160 acres, he  is  a  surplus holder to an extent of 42 acres 31 guntas.  He remitted  the matter of the S.D.O. for delimiting the surplus area. It may be  mentioned that before passing the said final order,  the Commissioner had issued notices to and heard appellants 2 to 4,  inasmuch  as their right were sought to be  affected  by him.      The   appellants   questioned  the  validity   of   the Commissioner’s  order  by  way  of  a  writ  petition  being Special Civil Application No. 439 of 1975 in the Bombay High Court.  The main contention urged in the said writ  petition was  based upon the proviso to Section 45(2).  It  was  that inasmuch as the order of the Collector was appealed against, it  could not longer be revised by the Commissioner in  view of  the  express  bar contained in  the  said  proviso.   On merits, the only contention urged pertained to the inclusion of the lands transferred by him by way to exchange.  Besides the  lands he obtained by way of exchange, his  lands  given away  under  exchange  were also included  in  his  holding. This,  according to the appellants, was unjust and  illegal. Both  the contention were negatived by a Division  Bench  of the  Bombay High Court whereupon the appellants  have  filed this  appeal  with  the  leave  of  this  court.   The  main contention  urged  before  us by Sri  P.H.  Parekh,  learned counsel  for the appellants is again based upon the  proviso to Section 45(2).  His contention, properly elaborated, runs thus: for the purpose of determining whether a person/family unit  holds  land  in  excess of the  ceiling  area,  it  is necessary for the Collector to determine the holding of such person/family unit.  Even where the Collector holds that                                                        471 the  holding  of a person/family unit is below  the  ceiling limit, he has to and does determine the extent of holding of such  person/family  unit.  If one looks to Section  9,  the relevance of such a finding (even where the finding is  that the  land held by such person/family is below  the  ceiling) would  become  evident.  A person/family unit  holding  land less than the ceiling area is entitled to acquire, after the ’commencement  date’,  land upto the ceiling limit  but  not beyond.   If  so,  a  land holder  whose  holding  has  been determined at a particular figure (though below the  ceiling limit) may yet be aggrieved if his case is that his  holding is  actually  lesser than what has been  determined  by  the Collector.  For, his right to acquire further land after the commencement   date  depends  upon  such  a  finding.    It,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

therefore,  follows  - says the counsel -  that  the  appeal preferred  by  the first appellant  before  the  Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was a proper and competent appeal.  May  be that appeal has been dismissed, yet it operates as a bar  to the exercise of the revisory power under Section 45(2), says the counsel.      The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, it may  be notices rejected the contention in the following words :           "Now  it is no doubt that the petitioner  in  this          case  had  filed  an  appeal  ,  even  through  the          petitioner could not be said to have been aggrieved          by another order made by the Collector.  The appeal          provided  by  Section 33 of the Act  is  an  appeal          against  the declaration or any part  thereof  made          under  section  21  of the Act, it  refers  to  the          declaration  in  respect  of the  surplus  land  in          respect  of which right, title and interest of  the          person of family unit holding it is to be forfeited          to the State Government.  It is no doubt true  that          even  if an appeal against part of the  declaration          under section 21(1) is contemplated, the order made          by the Collector in the instant proceeding, when he          held  that the petitioner did not have any  surplus          land,  was not a declaration under section  21  and          the  appeal was, therefore, be taken  into  account          for  holding  that  it created a  bar  against  the          exercise    of   revisional   jurisdiction.     The          Commissioner  was,  therefore, in our  view,  quite          justified in ignoring the appeal which was filed by          the  Petitioner which was clearly not  maintainable          and  he  was entitled to  exercise  his  revisional          jurisdiction in the matter."                                                        472      The  learned  counsel for the  appellant  disputes  the correctness   of   the  above  reasoning.   For   a   proper appreciation  of the contention urged by Sri Parekh,  it  is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.      The Act was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature with a view to impose a maximum limit (ceiling) on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra and to provide for  the  acquisition and distribution of the land  held  in excess  of such ceiling.  Section 3 declares that after  the ’commencement  date’,  no person or family unit  shall  hold land  in excess of ceiling area as determined in the  manner provided  in  the  Act.  Section  12  obliges  every  person holding  land  in  excess of the ceiling area  to  submit  a return  of  his holding within the time and  in  the  manner prescribed.  Section 5 prescribes the ceiling area.  Section 9 declares further that "no person or a member of the family unit  shall at any time, on or after the commencement  date, acquire  by transfer of the land if he, or as the  case  may be,  that  family unit already holds land in excess  of  the ceiling  area  or land which together with  any  other  land holding  by such person, or as the case may be,  the  family unit, will exceed in the total the ceiling area."  In  other words, a person holding agricultural lands below the ceiling limit  can acquire land only upto the ceiling limit but  not above  such  limit.  Evidently, acquisition of any  land  in excess of such limit is liable to the surrendered under  the Act.  Section 14 provides for an enquiry by the Collector on the basis of the return filed or suo motu to "determine  the surplus  land  held by such person or family."   Section  16 provides  for giving a choice to the surplus land holder  to select  the land which he wishes to retain upto the  ceiling area.   Section  18  specifies  several  matters  which  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Collector  shall consider.  These matters  include  "whether any  land  held by the holder.......should be deemed  to  be surplus  land under any of the provisions of this  Act"  and "Which  particular lands out of the total land held  by  the holder should be delimited as surplus land?" Section 19  and 20 provide for restoration of surplus land held by a  tenant to  the landholder, in accordance with the relevant  tenancy law,  to facilitate it being surrendered.  Section 21  then provides  for  making a ’declaration’ on the  basis  of  the determination  already made under Section 14 and  19.   Sub- section  (1) of Section 21 and Sub-section (2) thereof  read as follow:           "21.(1) 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                                                        473           stating therein his decision on----           (a)  the total area of land which the  person  (or          family  unit)  is entitled to hold as  the  ceiling          area;           (b)  the total area of land which is in excess  of          the ceiling area;  (c)  the name of the (landlord) 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;           (e)  the  area  and (particulars of  land  out  of          surplus land, in respect of which the right,  title          and interest of the person (or family unit) holding          it) is to be forfeited to the State Government.           (The  Collector shall announce his declaration  in          the  presence  of  his  holder  and  other  persons          interested  who are presented at the time  of  such          declaration.)           (2)  After a declaration under sub-section (1)  is          made  (the Collector shall prepare a  statement  in          the  prescribed form giving details of  the  area),          description and full particulars of the land  which          is delimited as surplus land, (and also of the land          therefrom,  the right, title and interest in  which          is)  to be forfeited to the State Government.  (The          Collector  shall affix a copy of the  statement  at          the village Chawdi or any other prominent place  at          the  village and shall also despatch a copy of  the          statement  to  the person or to the member  of  the          family  unit  interested in the land  delimited  as          surplus.   On the date of the announcement  of  the          declaration   mentioned  in  the   preceding   sub-          section),  (the  right, title and interest  in  the          land  which)  is liable to forfeiture  shall  stand          forfeited to and vest in the State Government.  (on          and   after  the  date  of  announcement   of   the          declaration)  no  sale, gift,  mortgage,  exchange,          lease  of  any  other  disposition  (including  any          transfer  in  execution of a decree or order  of  a          court, tribunal or authority) shall be made                                                        474           of  the land which is delimited as  surplus  land.          If  any  such disposition or transfer is  made,  it          shall be invalid, and of no effect."      A  reading  of  Section  21 makes  it  clear  that  the "declaration"  contemplated by it is to be made only in  the case  of a surplus holder.  The declaration has  to  contain

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

the various particulars mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) Sub- section  (1).   This  should  be  followed  by  a  statement containing  particulars  of the land delimited  as  surplus. This statement has to be published in the village and  other specified   places.   Sub-section  (3)  provides  that   the Collector  shall  take possession of the surplus  land  soon after  " the announcement of the declaration", whereupon  it shall   vest  in  the  State.   All  this  shows   that   no "declaration" is to be made under Section 21 in the case  of a  person/family  unit  whose holding does  not  exceed  the ceiling limit.      Section   33   makes  certain   specified   order   and declaration made under Section 21 appealable.   Sub-sections (1) and (1A) of Section 33 read as follow:           "33.(1) An appeal against an order or award of the          Collector  shall  lie to  the  Maharashtra  Revenue          Tribunal in the following cases :            (1)  and order under sub-sections (2) and (3)  of           section 13 (not being an order under which a  true           and correct return complete in all particulars  is           required to be furnished);            (2)  a  declaration  or any  part  thereof  under           section 21;            (2A) an order under section 21-A;            (3) an award under section 25;            (4)  an  order refusing sanction to  transfer  or           divide land under section 29;            (5) an order of forfeiture under sub-section  (3)           of section 29;            (6)  an amendment of declaration or  award  under           section                                                         475            37; and            (7)  an order of summary eviction  under  section           40.           (1A)  Any  respondent,  though  he  may  not  have          appealed  from  any part of  the  decision,  order,          declaration  or  award, may not  only  support  the          decision,  order declaration or award, as the  case          may be, on any of the grounds decided against  him,          but  take cross-objection to the  decision,  order,          declaration  or award which he could have taken  by          way of an appeal:           Provided  that, he has filed the objection in  the          Maharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal within  thirty  days          from  the date of service on him of notice  of  the          day fixed for hearing  the appeal, or such  further          time  as  the Tribunal may see fit  to  allow;  and          thereupon,  the provisions or order 41, rule 22  of          the First Schedule to the Code of Civil  Procedure,          1908,  shall  apply  in  relation  to  the   cross-          objection  as they apply in relation to the  cross-          objection under that rule."      Section  45 vests in the State Government the power  of control  and  supervision over the officers under  the  Act, which  power  can  be delegated by  the  Government  to  the Commissioner.  It would be appropriate to read section 45 in its entirety at this stage:           "45.(1)  In all matters connected with  this  Act,          the State Government shall have the same  authority          and  control  over the  officers  authorised  under          section  27, the Collectors and  the  Commissioners          acting  under this Act, as they do in  the  general          and revenue administration.           (2)  The State Government may, suo motu or  on  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

        application made to it by the aggrieved person,  at          any  time,  call for the record of any  inquiry  or          proceedings under section 17 to 21 (both inclusive)          for  the  purpose of satisfying itself  as  to  the          legality or propriety of any inquiry or proceedings          (or any part thereof) under those sections and  may          pass  such  order thereon as it  deems  fit,  after          giving the party a reasonable opportunity of  being          heard.           Provided  that, nothing in this sub-section  shall          entitle the State                                                        476           Government  to call for the record of any  inquiry          or  proceedings  of a declaration or  part  thereof          under section 21 in relation to any land, unless an          appeal against such declaration or part thereof has          not  been filed within the period provided  for  it          and  a period of three years from the date of  such          declaration or part thereof has not elapsed.           (3)  The  State Government may,  subject  to  such          restrictions  and  conditions as it may  impose  by          notification  in the Official Gazette, delegate  to          the Commissioner the power conferred on it by  sub-          section  (2)  of this section or  under  any  other          provisions  of  this Act except the power  to  make          rules  under section 46 or to make an  order  under          section 49."      Sub-section  (2) confers a suo motu power  of  revision upon  the  State Government for the  purpose  of  satisfying itself  as  to the legality or propriety of any  inquiry  or proceedings  under  sections  17 to 21  -  which  means  the inquiry  by and proceedings of the Collector.  The  proviso, however, says that his power "to call for the record of  any enquiry  or  proceedings of a declaration  or  part  thereof under  Section  21  in relation to any land"  shall  not  be available   if  an  appeal  has  been  filed  against   such declaration or part thereof. (We are not concerned with  the other restriction prescribed by the proviso).       A review of the above provisions clearly discloses the scheme  of the Act.  In particular, it shows that an  appeal is provided only against a "declaration" made under  section 21 and not against any of the orders made under Sections  14 to  20.  A mere determination or a finding or order  that  a person/family unit holds land less than the ceiling limit is not  a  "declaration" and, therefore, not  appealable.   The Bombay High Court was, therefore, right in holding that  the order  of the Collector dated 2nd January, 1969 in the  case of the first appellant was not appealable.  The appeal filed by him was one not provided by law and, hence, no appeal  in the  eye  of  law.  Such an  incompetent  appeal  could  not operate  as  a bar to the exercise to revisory  power  under section  45(2).  After all, it should not be forgotten,  the Act  is  not intended to determine or declare  titles.   The finding as to the extent of a holding of a person under  the Act  is  only a step towards its object  -  an  intermediate stage.      So far as the argument of Sri Parekh with reference  to Section 9 is                                                        477 concerned it is really not necessary to deal with it in view of   our  view  aforesaid.   Perhaps,  in   the   subsequent proceedings (taken for determining the surplus land held  by him  in  view  of  acquisition  of  fresh  land  after   the ’commencement  date’),  the  order  in  earlier  proceedings determining  his  holding  at a particular  figure  may  not

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

operate  as  res  judicata, though  it  would  be  certainly relevant.      The learned counsel for the respondents has put forward another submission to support the Commissioner’s order.  His submission runs thus: an appeal lies against the declaration or  a part thereof.  The part which is not appealed  against is  open to revision under section 45(a).  In the case of  a given person it may be held that he holds only an extent  of 2  acres in excess of the permissible ceiling area.  He  may be aggrieved with that finding and may have appealed against it.  He says that a particular extend of land should not  be included  in his holding.  But the Commissioner thinks  that the   person  really  holds  20  acres  in  excess  of   the permissible  ceiling area and not merely 2 acres.  In  other words,  he  wants  to include some extent  of  land  in  the holding of such person which has not been so included by the Collector in his holding.  Since the said aspect is not  the subject matter of appeal preferred by the person, it is open to     revision     under    Section    45(2)     by     the Government/Commissioner.   He submits that the provision  in Selection  33  providing  for  a right  of  appeal  and  the provision of Section 45(2) conferring a supervisory power in the Government/Commissioner must be harmonised so as to give both  the  provisions their due play.  He submits  that  his interpretation  is consistent with the scheme and object  of the  Act and goes to effectuate and advance the purposes  of the Act.  We do not, however, think it necessary to  express any  opinion  on this submission for the  purposes  of  this appeal.      There  remains the other submission of Sri Parekh  with respect  to  the exchange of 10 acres 20 guntas out  of  gut Nos. 462 and 463 (belonging to him) with 12 acres 24  guntas out of gut No.521 (belonging to his stepbrother,  Sadashiv). His  grievance is that both the extents are included in  the appellants holding while disbelieving the theory of exchange put  forward by him.  Sri Parekh submits that if the  theory of  exchange  is  rejected than the extent of  12  acres  24 guntas  in gut No.521 cannot be included in the  appellant’s holding.   To this the counsel for respondents submits  that mere  rejection of theory of exchange does  not  necessarily mean that the                                                        478 extent in gut No.521 should be excluded from the appellants’ holding  when they themselves claim that it is  theirs.   He suggests  that  the appellants may have  acquired  the  said extent in some other manner than the alleged exchange.   We, however,  do  not  see any justification in  the  facts  and circumstance  of  this  case, for including  both  the  said extents  in  the appellant’s holding.  It is no  one’s  case that  the appellant acquired extent in gut No. 521  in  some manner  other than the exchange put forward by him.  If  so, we  are  of the opinion that the said extent in  gut  No.521 ought  to  be excluded from his holding once the  theory  of exchange is disbelieved and when the extend in gut Nos.  462 and 463 is also included in his holding. The Collector shall take action accordingly.      Subject  to  the  above  modification,  the  appeal  is diposed of. No costs. V.P.R.                                        Partly allowed.                                                        479