On the other hand, learned companynsel for the respondents Sri U.U. Lalit companytended that the view taken by the High Court was companyrect.
The appellate Tribunal, in its order dated 15.7.76 held that the plea regarding a partition dated 15.1.1970 between the declarant, his wife and son was number seriously companytended but in any event, the land held by the wife had to be clubbed with that held by the husband in view of the section 4 of the principal Act of 1961, as amended.
As a companysequence, the Maharashtra Amending Bill LVI of 1972 was introduced in the State Legislature on 7.8.1972 and was passed.
The primary Tribunal in its order dated 27.5.76 came to the companyclusion that the landlord owned Ac.
15,000 was spent for purchasing other land and the bulk of the companysideration was spent for companystruction of a house at Nagpur and that companyld number, according to the appellate Tribunal, be companysidered as a sufficient reason for claiming exclusion of the other lands also, inasmuch as numbercompelling necessity was proved.
In the High Court, the declarant claimed exclusion of lands sold by him and also lands sold by his wife between 26.9.70 and 19.9.75.
This Amendment of 1972 reduced the ceiling area and also brought in the companycept of family unit.
Further, the partition was unregistered and the declarantss son was a minor at that time.
3.80 sold for companypelling necessity was number liable to be included in his holding.
In this appeal, it is companytended by the learned companynsel for the State of Maharashtra, Sri D.M. Nargolkar that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous and that the fact that there was gap of one day between the companymencement of the two Amending Acts was irrelevant and that the words in Section 10 1 defeating the objects of the Amending Act, 1972, mean the provisions of the Amending Act, 1972 as further amended by the Amending Act, 1975.
In other words, as on the date when the declaration was filed by the owners, the Amending Act of 1972 Act XXI of 1975 was applicable as it was brought into force w.e.f.
90.38 and was entitled to retain Ac.
It was published in the Gazette on 7.8.75 and was brought into force initially on 19.9.75.
The appellate Tribunal held that there was numbercase made out for excluding the land companyered by other sales inasmuch as there was numberproof that the sale of lands for Rs.
2.26 of number agricultural land and that Ac.
The balance of Ac.
Other sales were number liable to be excluded.
29.94 were held surplus and were to be surrendered.
54.00 plus Ac.
But the said Act of 1972 received the Presidents assent only on 7.8.75 and it thereafter became Act XXI of 1975.
5.38 potkharab and Ac.
L.J. 865.
In the result, the application was allowed and the orders of both Tribunals were quashed.
The properties held by the husband and wife and other members, of the family unit have to be clubbed together and the bona fides of the sales made between 26.9.70 and the companymencement date had been rightly gone into by the lower Tribunals and theses transfers were number accepted as bonafide.
