(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4069 OF 1991 Sopan s/o. Gopalrao Bangar, died through L.R. : Dagdu s/o. Sopan Bangar, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Pimparkheda (Bk.), Taluka : Ghansavangi, District : Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Pandurang s/o. Vithoba Bange, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Mugaji s/o. Vithoba Bhange, Age : 32 years,. 4. Suryabhan s/o. Vithoba Bhange, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture. All respondent nos.2 to 4 are residents of village Pimparkhed (Bk.), Taluka : Ambad, District : Jalna. .. Respondents (2) 5. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, .. Petition already Aurangabad. dismissed as against respondent no.5. ....................... Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate, instructed by Mr. A.M. Kanade, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Sunil Sonpawale, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. Vasant Choudhari, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 4 (Absent). Writ Petition dismissed as against respondent no.5 as per Addititional Registrar's order dated 17-6-1996. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the judgment dated 19-11-1991 delivered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Case No. 68/A/91-Jalna. (3) 2. Those proceedings were instituted by present respondent nos.2 to 4, challenging the order of Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Jalna, dated 26th March 1990, declaring and delimiting 8.03 Acres out of Gut No. 213 (Survey No. 99/2) of village Pimpalkhed (Bk.), Taluka Ambad, as surplus. According to them, they are the bona fide purchasers of said land and hence that land could not have been declared and delimited as surplus. They contended that land owner, Shri Sopan (present petitioner) had ample lands with him and those unencumbered lands could have been delimited as surplus. In the impugned order, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has made reference to land Survey No. 166/2 which was partitioned in violation of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Ceiling Act"). Its area is found to be 14 - 15 Acres. 3. Mr. S.M. Godsay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that initially Surplus Land Determination Tribunal declared 6.25 Acres of land only as surplus on 22-4-1976. The said order was scrutinized by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in proceedings under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act and the matter was remanded back to Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (For short, (4) hereinafter referred to as "SLDT"). The SLDT thereafter declared additional 8.83 Acres of land as surplus. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that this order under Section 45(2) or then determination of additional area of 8.83 Acres, as surplus, is behind back of the petitioner. According to him, in these circumstances, direction issued by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, to delimit surplus land from other lands held by the petitioner, is unwarranted and without jurisdiction. He also states that the petitioner does not possess any land and hence the direction is infructuous. 4. Mr. D.R. Korde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1, has supported the impugned order. According to him, the contentions raised were never pressed into service before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the order of the Additional Commissioner, in revision, was not challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. He further states that in revision, Additional Commissioner noticed that exclusion of 8 Acres and 3 Gunthas of land, on the ground that it was acquired by the Government for re-settlement of project affected persons by SLDT, was unjustified. In fresh inquiry, SLDT found that possession of the said land was never taken by the State Government and it constituted part of holding of the petitioner. He, therefore, states that direction to delimit (5) surplus land from the unencumbered land in possession of the petitioner is in accordance with law and cannot be interfered with. 5. With the assistance of respective Counsel, I have perused the papers. The facts show that on 24-4-1976, SLDT determined 6.25 Acres of land as surplus. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, by his order passed under the provisions of Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act on 31st December 1988, noted that there were no certificates to show whether sons of petitioner were major or not, and the SLDT could not have excluded 8 Acres 83 Gunthas land because of its alleged acquisition. The matter was, therefore, remanded to the SLDT for fresh inquiry. After remand, the matter is considered by the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector did not exclude 8.83 Acres, after noticing that though land was to be acquired for re- settlement of project affected persons, its possession remained with the petitioner and it was never taken by the Government. The said order dated 26th March 1990 was then questioned by the respondent nos.2 to 4 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The petitioner did not challenge that order in appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Not only this, but the petitioner also did not assail the order dated 31st December 1988 passed by the Deputy Collector under Section 45, Sub-Section 2 (6) of the Ceiling Act. 6. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has considered the challenge in this background. It has found that lands sought to be delimited as surplus were encumbered inasmuch as, the same were purchased by the respondent nos.2 to 4 by a valid document. It has also noted that the petitioner holds about 98 Acres of land. It has considered the partition of Survey No. 166/2 effected by the petitioner amongst his family members and found that the said partition was in violation of Section 11 of the Ceiling Act. These findings recorded by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal are not assailed before this Court. 7. It is, therefore, clear that the view reached by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is in accordance with law and there is no jurisdictional error. The contention, that the petitioner had no land left with him, can be looked into by the authority empowered to delimit surplus land as per directions of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has set aside the order of Deputy Collector impugned before it and found that the said authority has to delimit surplus area of 8.03 Acres from any other unencumbered land, as directed by it. There is no perversity in its approach. In this situation, no case is made out warranting interference in this (7) jurisdiction. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Needless to mention, that the interim relief stands vacated. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4069