ARJUNA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 331
- Decided
- 2 May 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, holding that the ground concerning the respondents' surplus status remains undisputed due to non‑production of the required returns, and allowed the appeal.
Summary
The appellants challenged the High Court's finding that the respondents, being within the ceiling limit under the Maharashtra Land Ceiling Act, could not be declared surplus land holders and thus the allotment of surplus land to them was illegal. The Supreme Court directed both parties to produce the land return filed by the respondents and a certified copy thereof. The respondents failed to produce the required documents despite repeated directions, and the appellants were unable to procure the certified copy. Consequently, the Court held that the issue of whether the respondents were surplus holders remained unresolved, and therefore the High Court's order could not stand. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the respondents were given liberty to file a review petition within two months.
Issues considered
- Whether a person who is within the ceiling limit under the Maharashtra Land Ceiling Act can be declared a surplus holder and have surplus land allotted to them.
- Whether the failure to produce the land return and its certified copy precludes a determination of surplus status.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
ARJUNA AND ORS. A
v.
:-)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
MAY 2, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B
Maharashtra Land ceiling Act :
Land-holder within ceiling limit-Allotment of surplus Land-Validity
of
c
The High Court held that as the respondents are within the ceiling
limit allotment of surplus land to them was illegal. In this Court It was
specifically pleaded that the respondents are declared tO be a surplus
bolder and the excess land was assigned to the appellants.
Allowing the apl>eal, this Court
D
. /._ HELD : Both the parties were directed to produce the return flied
by the respondents as well as a certified copy of the said return but they
failed. In that view of the matter, the ground raised has remained on-
disputed. Accordingly, the order of the High Court Is set aside. [1106-CJ E
CNIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil APPeal No. 2446 of
1978.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.78 of the Bombay High
> ,._ Court in F.A. No. 155 of 1971. F
P.H. Parekh for the Awellants.
Dr. N.N. Ghatate and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
The High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the private
respondent are within the ceiling limit and, therefore, allotment of the
-\
surplus land to the respondents is illegal. In ground No. 5 of the special
leave petition it was specifically pleaded that the respondents are declared
to be a surplus holder and the excess land was assigned to the appellants. H
1105
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R.
A By order dated March 22, 1995, we had directed both the parties to
produce the return filed by the respondents. The appellants were directed '("
to get the certified copy of the said return as well as the copy of the return
filed by the respondents.
It is stated by Dr. N.N. Ghatate, learned senior counsel for the
B respondents, that through Mr. S.V. Deshpande, the learned instructing
counsel, had written letters to the party he has not received any response.
Mr. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, stated that the.y
could not procure the certified copy.
In that view of the matter, ground No.5 has remained undisputed.
C The appeal is, accordingly allowed on that terms and the order of the High
Court is set aside. In case the respondents were declared to be within the
ceiling limit, liberty is given to them to file a review petition within a period
of two months from to day. No costs.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
I
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.