The Sub Divisional Officer, however, by an order dated 31st August 1965 rejected this companytention of the respondents and held that it was with reference to the appointed day namely, 26th January 1962 that surplus land belonging to a tenure holder was liable to be determined and since on the appointed day, Abhimanji held 136 acres 39 gunthas of land, 53 acres 39 gunthas of land belonging to him was liable to be declared as surplus land.
The respondents being aggrieved by this order passed by the sub Divisional Officer preferred a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, but the learned member of the Tribunal hearing the revision application, agreed with the view taken by the Sub Divisional Officer and companyfirmed the older declaring 53 acres 39 sunthas of land to be surplus by an order dated 12.2.1968.
One Abhimanji Chipadaji Kamlesh owned a piece of land admeasuring 137 acres 39 gunthas.
Before any order companyld be made by the Sub Divisional Officer declaring any part of the land belonging to Abhimanji as surplus land, Abhimanji died on 3rd April 1963 leaving him surviving his widows Respondent Nos.
He filed a return Under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Ceiling on Holdings Act, 1961 on 27.7.
During the companyrse of the enquiry before the sub Divisional Officer, it came to his numberice that Abhimanji had died and numberices were accordingly issued to the respondents as heirs and legal representatives of Abhimanji and they were asked to file return u s 16 of the Act.
9, 10 and 11 and the heirs and legal representatives of his deceased daughter Kashi, namely, Respondents Nos.
3 and 5 and his son Respondent No.
The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by this view taken by the High Court preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this companyrt.
The respondents were obviously dissatisfied with this order passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal and they accordingly filed a 1 Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the decisions of both the Sub Divisional Officer and the learned Member of the Tribunal.
2 as also the heirs and legal representatives of his pre deceased son, Maruti, namely, Respondents Nos.
6 to 8.
1 and 4, his daughters Respondents Nos.
