http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: JUGAL KISHORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/09/1988

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RANGNATHAN, S.

CITATION:  1989 AIR  159            1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 270  1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 589 JT 1988 (4)   109  1988 SCALE  (2)1076

ACT:     Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961:  Determination of question of  tenancy-Whether  within the  jurisdiction of Ceiling Authority-Land  transferred  by owner  or  various tenants under Bombay Tenancy  Act,  1958- Authority under Ceiling Act 1961 determining land  holdings- Whether legal, valid and proper.

HEADNOTE:     In   the  ceiling  proceedings  under  the   Maharashtra Agricultural  Land  (Ceiling  on  Holdings)  Act,  1961  the petitioner  alleged  that there was no surplus land  in  the holding of his family Unit as certain lands had been  leased out to various tenants and the same had been transferred  to them  under  the  Bombay  Tenancy  and  Agricultural   Lands (Vidarbha  Region)  Act, 1958 and, therefore,  the  tenanted lands  should  be excluded from his total  holdings  as  the orders of the  Tenancy Authorities had become final and were binding  on the Ceiling Authorities. Rejecting the claim  of the  petitioner  the sub-Divisional officer  held  that  the orders  passed  by  the Tenancy  Courts  conferring  tenancy rights  and  issuing certificates in favour of  the  tenants were  not  justified  and declared 58.28 acres  of  land  as surplus.   This  finding  was  maintained  by  the   Revenue Tribunal.  The challenge made by the petitioner  before  the Single  Judge  as well as the Division Bench   of  the  High Court also failed.     In  the special leave petition under Article 136 of  the Constitution  to this Court, on behalf of the petitioner  it was  contended that in view of sub-s. (2) of s. 100  of  the Bombay Act, the Tenancy Tahsildar had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy, and s. 124 of the Bombay Act bars  the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal  with  any question covered by s. 100 and, therefore, determination  of the  question  of  tenancy by the  Ceiling  Authorities  was without jurisdiction.     Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, this Court,     HELD:  l.  Land  had been  transferred  to  the  various tenants  under  the Bombay Tenancy &  Agriculture  (Vidarbha Region)  Act, 1958 in the name of the respective tenants  by the order of the Tenancy  Tahsildar. [272F]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

                                                 PG NO 270                                                   PG NO 271     2.The  Ceiling  Authority  had  to  determine  the  land holdings of the petitioner. [274C]     3.Where a transfer is made by the land-holder creating a tenancy, whether the transfer was made bona fide or made  in anticipation to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act, is a  question  which falls for determination squarely  by  the Ceiling  Authorities,  to give effect to  or  implement  the Ceiling Act. [274C-D]     4. Unless the Acts, the Ceiling Act and the Tenancy Act, with  the intention of implementing  various  socio-economic plans, are read in a complementary manner, the operation  of the   different  Acts  in  the  same  field   would   create contradiction and would become impossible. It is, therefore, necessary  to take a constructive attitude  in  interpreting provisions of these types and determine the main aim of  the particular  Act  in  question for  adjudication  before  the Court. [274E-F]     5. In the Ceiling Proceedings it has been held that  the transfer  to  the tenant was not bona fide and was  done  in anticipation of the Ceiling Act. This Court finds no  ground to interfere with the Order of the High Court. [275A]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No. 3292 of 1988.     From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.1987 of the Bombay High Court in L.P.A. No. 124 of 1985.     V.A.  Bobde,  Juggal  Kishore and A.K.  Sanghi  for  the Petitioner.     A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,. J. This application under  Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order  of  the Division Bench of the High Court  of  Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 7th September. 1987. Before the Division Bench,   the   land-holder-  the  petitioner   herein,   had challenged  the dismissal of the writ petition at the  stage of  admission  by the learned Single  Judge  confirming  the order of the learned sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, dated 28th  February, 1984 and also the order of  the  Maharashtra Revenue   Tribunal,  Nagpur,  dated  26th  December,   1984, declaring  very large areas of land to be in excess  of  the                                                   PG NO 272 ceiling area permissible to be held by the petitioner.     The  case of the petitioner is that his family unit,  as defined under section 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling  on  Holdings) Act, 1961, hereinafter  called  ’the Act’, consisted of himself, his wife,  two  sons and a minor daughter.  His  further  case was  that  during  the  period between 26.9.1970 and 2.10.1975, he did not hold any land of his  own.  His wife Vidyavati was holding  during  the  said period certain land (particulars whereof are not necessary). His  son,  who was minor, was also holding during  the  said period,  certain  other plots of land. His  another  son,  a minor, was also holding some more land.     Hence it appears that the petitioner’s case was that his family  Unit was holding land to the extent of 50  Acres  73 Gunthas, and there was no surplus land in the holding of his family  Unit. The petitioner’s further contention  was  that his  son  had leased out to the respondent certain  area  of land.  Similarly,  there were properties leased out  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

tenant. It appears that the total land holdings, as per  the sub-Divisional  Officer, Amravati, was 54 acres and  out  of remaining 112.28 acres the petitioner was allowed to  retain 54 acres. and the other 58.28 acres of land was declared  as the  surplus land. This finding was maintained in appeal  by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, and was challenged before  the High Court. The learned Single  Judge  dismissed the application.     It was contended that the said land had been transferred to   the  various  tenants  under  the  Bombay   Tenancy   & Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, l958  (hereinafter called  ’the  Bombay  Act’).in the name  of  the  respective tenants  by the order of the Tenancy Tahsildar.  The  Bombay Act  was  an Act to amend the law relating to  tenancies  of agricultural land and sites used for allied pursuits and  it was  reiterated in the Preamble that it was with a  view  to bringing the status and the rights of the tenants, as far as possible,  in  line with those prevailing in  certain  other parts of the State, and it was expedient in the interest  of the  general  public to regulate the transfer of  rights  in agricultural land. According to the petitioner. the order of the tenancy authorities conferring upon tenants the right of statutory purchaser and the Bombay Act had become final  and these  were  binding on the Ceiling Authorities who  had  to decide the ceiling proceedings. It was,therefore,  submitted that  having  regard to the effect of  these  findings,  the Ceiling  Authorities, the sub-Divisional Officer as well  as the  Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal should have  excluded  the tenanted lands in possession of the respective tenants  from                                                   PG NO 273 the  total holdings of the petitioner.  Similar  contentions were   raised   before  the   sub-Divisional   Officer   and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur.     The  petitioner.  the  tenants  Nandkishore  Bajaj   and Talathi  were  examined  as  witnesses.  The  learned   sub- Divisional Officer held that the order passed by the Tenancy Courts conferring tenancy rights and issuing certificates in favour of the tenants was not justified and clearly illegal. Thus, on appreciation of evidence, the claim of tenancy  was negatived by the sub-Divisional Officer and the  Maharashtra Revenue  Tribunal. The High Court held that both the  Courts were  the  Courts  of facts and  gave  their  findings.  The findings made by these Courts were within their jurisdiction to find, and to implement the Ceiling Act. According to  the Division  Bench of the High Court, the learned Single  Judge was right.     It  was submitted before us as well as before  the  High Court that in view of sub-section (2) of Section 100 of  the Bombay Act, the Tenancy Tahsildar had exclusive jurisdiction to  decide the issue of tenancy. Section 100 of  the  Bombay Act,  so far material for the present purposes, provides  as follows:     "100.  for the purpose of this Act. the following  shall be  the  duties  and  functions  to  be   performed  by  the Tahsildar:     (1) to decide whether a person is an agriculturist;     (2) to decide whether a person is or was at any time  in the  past.  a  tenant a protected lessee  or  an   occupancy tenant;     Section  124 of the Bombay Act bars the jurisdiction  of the Civil Court to deal with any question covered by section 100. The Section runs as follows:     "124.  (l)  No (Civil Court shall have  jurisdiction  to settle,decide  or  deal  with  any  question  (including   a question whether a person is or was at any time in the past,

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

a   tenant  and  whether  the  ownership  of  any  land   is transferred  to. and vests in, a tenant under section 46  or section 49-A or section 49-B) which is by or under this  Act required  to  be  settled,  decided or  dealt  with  by  the Tahsildar  or  Tribunal,  a Manager, the  Collector  or  the (Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal) in appeal or revision or  the State Government in exercise of their powers of control.                                                   PG NO 274     (2)  No  order  of  the  Tahsildar,  the  Tribunal,  the Manager,     the  Collector  or  the  (Maharashtra   Revenue Tribunal) or  the State Government made under this Act shall be  questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court.     Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, a  Civil Court  shall include a Mamlatdar’s Court  constituted  under the Mamlatdars’ Court Act, 1906."     It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the  petitioner that determination of the question of tenancy by the Ceiling Authorities,  was without jurisdiction. The High Court  held that  in  the  facts of this case it  was  not  the  Ceiling Authority  had  to  determine  the  land  holdings  of   the petitioner.  incidentally, where a transfer is made  by  the landholder  creating a tenancy, there whether  the  transfer was  made  bona fide or made in anticipation to  defeat  the provisions of the Ceiling Act, is a question which falls for determination  squarely by the Ceiling Authorities, to  give effect to or implement the Ceiling Act. In that adjudication it was an issue to decide whether tenancy right was acquired by the tenant of the petitioner. But here before the Ceiling Authorities the adjudication was whether the transfer to the tenant,assuming that such transfer was there, was bona  fide or  made  in anticipation to defeat the  provisions  of  the Ceiling  Act. This latter question can only be gone into  in appropriate  proceedings by the Ceiling Authorities.  Unless the Acts, with the intention of implementing various  socio- economic  plans, are read in such complimentary manner,  the operation  of  the different Acts in the  same  field  would create  contradiction  and would become impossible.  It  is, therefore,  necessary  to take a  constructive  attitude  in interpreting  provisions  of these types and  determine  the main aim of the particular Act in question for  adjudication before the Court.     In our opinion, having regad to the Preamble to the  Act of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on  Holdings) Act, 1961, which was enacted for giving effect to the policy of  the State towards securing the principles  specified  in clause  (b) & (c) of Article 39 of our Constitution; and  in particular,  but without prejudice to the generality of  the foregoing  declaration,  to ensure that  the  ownership  and control  of the agricultural resources of the community  are so  distributed  as  to best subserve the  common  good  and having regard to the purpose of the Bombay Act, it was  open to the Ceiling Authorities to  determine whether there  was, in fact, a genuine tenancy.                                                   PG NO 275     In  that view of the matter we are of the  opinion  that the  High  Court was right in the approach it made.  In  the ceiling  proceedings it has been held that the  transfer  to the tenant was not bona fide and was done in anticipation of the  Ceiling  Act. We find no ground to interfere  with  the Order  of  the  High  Court.  There  is  no  merit  in  this application. Hence, it fails and is dismissed. A.P.J.                                   Petition dismissed.