Kishandas Kanhaiyalal Gandhi vs State Of Maharastra And Anr
- Neutral1995 INSC 153
- AIRAIR 1996 SC 185
- SCR[1995] 2 SCR 423
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an owner claims property in ceiling proceedings and a third party subsequently initiates tenancy proceedings after the ceiling proceedings have been commenced, and the third party allows orders rejecting his tenancy claim to become final, the land cannot be excluded from the owner's holding in ceiling proceedings on the basis of the third party's alleged tenancy rights. The owner remains the owner for purposes of the Ceiling Act, and the land must be included in determining surplus holdings, without regard to the legality of findings in the tenancy proceedings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Bombay High Court dated January 10, 1988 in L.P.A. No. 148 of 1986. The facts in this appeal are not disputed. The appellant was found to be in surplus of agricultural land to an extend to 45 acres 30 guntas under Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. He contends that one 0m Prakash has crystalised his rights to be a tenant in respect of 47 acres and 17 guntas of land and that, therefore, he is not having any surplus land. It is also alternatively contended that in the event that he is found to be owner of this land, an option may be given to him to surrender the land claimed by Om Prakash, so that he retains the land within the ceiling limit.
We do not find any force in either of the contentions. It is admitted to his claim statement that he claimed ownership over all the properties. It is also to be seen that when proceedings were initiated to determine surplus land, Om Prakash sent a representation claiming the lands as tenant and when it was rejected, he allowed the proceedings to become final. By side wind Om Prakash initiated proceedings before the Mamlatdar under the Tenancy Act claiming to be a tenant. In those proceedings State was not a party. He was found to be a tenant under the appellant and he was said to be in possession of lands. It is also claimed that the appellant filed an application before the competent authority that Om Prakash was in un- authorised occupation and the authority found against the appellant.
On the abovesaid facts, it is contended that as Om Prakash was in possession of the land and the appellant had no right over those lands under the Tenancy Act, he lost his right as an owner. Therefore, self same land cannot be included as high holding. We do not find any force in this contention. As seen, all the proceedings were initiated by Om Prakash only after the appellant submitted his statement claiming those properties. He allowed the orders made under the Act rejecting his claim as tenant to become final. The self same land would not be excluded on the premise that Om Prakash became deemed owner/tenant by operation of orders made under Tenancy Act. Therefore, without going into the legality of the Finding recorded by the tribunals under Tenancy Act, the appellant remains to be the owner so far as the Ceiling Act is concerned and, therefore, the land cannot be excluded from his ownership or holding nor liberty be given to surrender the land said to be in the possession of Om Prakash.
In the circumstances, we find no force warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free