Full Judgment Text
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