since the ceiling under the act is 54 acres the respondent was asked to surrender an area admeasuring 13 acres and 34 gunthas.
by an order dated january 16 1979 the additional companymissioner remanded the matter to the tribunal for a fresh inquiry into the question as to whether the sale of land effected by the respondents wife after the numberified date was supported by legal necessity.
by an order dated march 8 1983 this companyrt had issued a show cause numberice to the respondent stating therein that the matter will be finally heard and disposed of at the next hearing.
the respondent filed a writ petition number 1117 of 1979 in the high companyrt of bombay against the judgment of the additional companymissioner.
the show cause numberice has been served on the respondent but he has number put in his appearance.
the respondent contended in those proceedings that an area of 17 acres and 27 gunthas which was sold by his wife after the numberified date was wrongly included in the holding of the family unit on the basis that the sale was mala fide and was number supported by legal necessity.
the companytention of the respondent before the high companyrt was that the additional companymissioner should have remanded the proceedings to the tribunal number only for the purpose of determining whether the respondents wife had sold the land for the purpose of legal necessity but also for the purpose of determining whether the land which stood in the name of the respondents wife companystituted her separate or stridhan property.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 25th april 1979 of the bombay high companyrt in writ petition number 1117 of 1979.
this companytention was accepted by the high companyrt which by its judgment dated april 25 1979 enlarged the scope of the remand by directing the tribunal to inquire also into the question as to whether the land which stood in the name of the respondents wife was her separate property.
the companyrectness of the judgment of the high companyrt is challenged by the state of maharashtra in this appeal.
shri v. s. desai who appears on behalf of the appellant companytends that the high companyrt was in error in enlarging the scope of the order of remand passed by the additional companymissioner by directing the tribunal to hold an inquiry into the question whether the land which stood in the name of the respondents wife and which was sold by her allegedly for medical expenses was her separate property.
the additional companymissioner aurangabad called for the record and proceedings of the tribunal suo motu.
the contention was that the respondents wife had sold the land in order to meet the medical expenses in companynection with her illness.
nemo for the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 4264 of 1983.
a question frequently arises under the agricultural ceiling acts passed by the state legislatures as to whether the land owned and held by a wife as her separate property can be clubbed together with the lands held by her husband and the other members of the family for the purpose of companyputing the ceiling on the holding of the family unit.
the surplus lands determination tribunal held under section 21 of the act that the total holding of the respondent including the land which was alleged to be the separate property of his wife was 67 acres and 34 gunthas.
the respondent vyasendra filed a return under section 12 of the act showing the lands held by him and mentioning that certain lands which stood in the name of his wife were her separate property.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud c.j.
s. desai and m. n. shroff with him for the appellant.
