Case ID: 5858

Judgment:
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. 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. 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 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	 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.

Summary:
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 section (2) of section 100 of the Bombay Act	 the Tenancy Tahsildar had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy	 and section 124 of the Bombay Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with any question covered by section 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] 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]