Vishwasrao Stwarao Naik And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra

‘NON-REPORTABLE’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2038-2039/2009

Vishwasrao Satwarao Naik & Ors. …. Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Maharashtra … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta J.

1. The Maharashtra Agriculture Land (Ceiling on Holdings)

Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Ceiling Act’) was enforced with effect

from 04.08.1959 in the area in question.

2. Satwarao, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, held

huge tracts of land but did not file return under the Ceiling

Signature Not Verified Act. A notice was issued to him and in response to the notice, Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2018.04.25 15:51:54 IST Reason: he claimed that he only held agricultural land measuring 127 2

acres and 8 guntas in various villages. On inquiry, the

authorities prima facie found that on 04.08.1959, Satwarao

held 468.08 acres of land and notice was again sent to him.

He again filed reply and set up some sales, gifts and transfers

which, according to him, took place prior to the enforcement

of the Ceiling Act. For the purposes of deciding this case, it is

not necessary to go into all the details. It would be sufficient

to state that Satwarao was found to hold 333.14 acres of

land. The admitted case of the parties is that keeping in view

the quality of land and the area in which it is situate, the Sub

Divisional Officer (SDO) held that Satwarao was entitled to

retain 114 acres of land for his family. 44.51 acres of land

was deducted as ‘pot kharab’ land i.e. land which is totally

unfit for cultivation and thus, excluded from the ceiling limit.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the SDO, Satwarao filed an

appeal in the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (for

short ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal found that the extent of

uncultivable land was 106.24 acres and this was to be

deducted. This deduction was done on the basis of some 3

survey report carried out by the revenue authorities. The

appellants/their predecessor-in-interest carried the matter to

the High Court and finally to this Court claiming that the

extent of cultivable land is more than 106.24 acres but this

was not accepted. As far as the State is concerned, it never

challenged the order of the Tribunal or of the High Court.

4. The Act was amended later and the ceiling limit was

changed to 54 acres from 114 acres. Therefore, a fresh return

had to be filed. Satwarao had bequeathed his properties in

favour of his daughter-in-law viz., Rajni Bai. Return on her

behalf was filed by her husband Vishwasrao. In this return, it

was claimed that the appellant is holding 119.03 acres of land

including some lands which were individually owned by Rajni

Bai and the lands bequeathed to her by her father-in-law. It

would be pertinent to mention that in the return filed by

Vishwasrao on behalf of his wife, the extent of pot kharab

land was only shown to be 11.10 acres. On inquiry, it was

found that the actual extent of land held by the family of the

assessee was 249.19 acres. The Surplus Land Determination 4

and Distribution Officer (for short ‘the SLDO’) found that the

total extent of ‘pot kharab’ land was 28.20 acres. The family

was entitled to 54 acres as the ceiling limit and, therefore,

166.39 acres was declared to be excess land to be handed

over to the State.

5. Appeal was filed by Vishwasrao before the Tribunal

and the main ground urged was that when in the earlier

proceedings 106.24 land was held out to be pot kharab, how

could the pot kharab land be held to be less than that. The

appeal with regard to this aspect was dismissed. Thereafter,

the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court which has

also been dismissed leading to the filing of the present cases.

6. The main ground urged is that since in the earlier

proceedings held under the Act, the extent of pot kharab land

was found to be 106.24 acres, then in the second ceiling

proceedings the extent of pot kharab land could not come

down to 28.20 acres. In this behalf, it is urged that the

revenue authorities have relied upon the revenue entries with

regard to the classification of the land and have not actually 5

visited the land to determine which land is cultivable and

which land is not cultivable. In ceiling proceedings, it is the

duty of the owner of the land to show which portion of his

land is exempt from ceiling proceedings. In this case, in the

return filed on behalf of the owner it was mentioned that only

11.10 acres of land is pot kharab. However, on the basis of

the revenue record, the officer assessed the pot kharab land

as 28.20 acres. The appellant led no evidence and has not

even placed on record the revenue records prior to the earlier

ceiling proceedings or the revenue record thereafter, to

support his claim that even earlier the land which was

declared to be pot kharab, was actually not classified as such

in the revenue record. Presumption of truth is attached to

the revenue record. No doubt, this is a rebuttable

presumption, but it is for the party who alleges that the

entries in the revenue record are wrong to lead evidences to

rebut this presumption. This, the appellants have miserably

failed to do. The appellants have also failed to lead any

evidence to show that the revenue entries are wrong. 6

7. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeals.

The same are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any,

stand(s) disposed of.

………………………..J. (Madan B. Lokur)

…………………………J. (Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi April 25, 2018