Hence it appears that the petitioners case was that his family Unit was holding land to the extent of 50 Acres 73 Gunthas, and there was numbersurplus land in the holding of his family Unit.
the tenants Nandkishore Bajaj and Talathi were examined as witnesses.
According to the petitioner.
The petitioner.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the application.
His another son, a minor, was also holding some more land.
The petitioners further companytention was that his son had leased out to the respondent certain area of land.
Thus, on appreciation of evidence, the claim of tenancy was negatived by the sub Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
His wife Vidyavati was holding during the said period certain land particulars whereof are number necessary .
It was companytended 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.
Similar companytentions were raised before the sub Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur.
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.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.1987 of the Bombay High Court in L.P.A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
and the other 58.28 acres of land was declared as the surplus land.
A. Bobde, Juggal Kishore and A.K. Sanghi for the Petitioner.
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.
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.
the order of the tenancy authorities companyferring 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.
3292 of 1988.
The learned sub Divisional Officer held that the order passed by the Tenancy Courts companyferring tenancy rights and issuing certificates in favour of the tenants was number justified and clearly illegal.
This finding was maintained in appeal by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, and was challenged before the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,.
M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
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, companysisted of himself, his wife, two sons and a minor daughter.
124 of 1985.
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 companyfirming 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.
His further case was that during the period between 26.9.1970 and 2.10.1975, he did number hold any land of his own.
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.
His son, who was minor, was also holding during the said period, certain other plots of land.
