Holding

A Collector’s order determining a holder’s land extent is not a ‘declaration’ under Section 21 and is therefore not appealable under Section 33; consequently, the appeal does not bar the Commissioner’s revisional power under Section 45(2), and land obtained by a disbelieved exchange must be excluded from the holding.

Summary

The petitioners, agricultural landholders, filed returns under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961. The Collector held that the first petitioner’s holding was 124 acres 23 guntas, below the ceiling, and therefore not a surplus holder. The petitioner appealed this finding before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner issued a notice under Section 45(2) of the Act to revise the Collector’s order, determining a larger holding and declaring surplus land. The petitioners challenged the Commissioner’s revision, arguing that the earlier appeal barred the suo‑motu revisional power and that land acquired by exchange should be excluded from the holding. The Supreme Court held that a Collector’s determination of holding is not a “declaration” under Section 21 and thus not appealable under Section 33; consequently, the earlier appeal could not bar the Commissioner’s revisional power under Section 45(2). The Court also held that the earlier determination does not operate as res judicata in later surplus‑land proceedings and that land obtained by a disbelieved exchange must be excluded from the holding. The appeal was partly allowed, the Commissioner’s order was modified to exclude the exchanged land, and the matter was remitted for appropriate action, with no costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal against a Collector’s order determining the extent of holding, which is not a declaration under Section 21, is maintainable under Section 33 of the Act.
Whether such an appeal, if filed, bars the Commissioner’s suo‑motu revision power under the proviso to Section 45(2).
Whether a prior determination of holding operates as res judicata in subsequent surplus‑land proceedings.
Whether land acquired by exchange should be counted in the holder’s total holding when the theory of exchange is rejected.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 11
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 18, s. 19, s. 20, s. 21, s. 3, s. 33, s. 45, s. 5, s. 9

Subjects

agricultural land ceilingsurplus landdeclarationappealrevisionSection 45Section 33res judicataland exchangeMaharashtra Agricultural Lands Act

Judgment

A GANPATRAO GULABRAO PAWAR AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APRIL 6, 1992

B [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND B.P. JEEVAN REEDY, JJ.]

Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act,
1961-Sections 3,5,9-Legis/ative intention-Acquisition of land above ceiling
limit-Liable to surrender.
c Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act,
1961-Sections 14 to 20, 21, 45--Declaration-When to be made-Detennina- -1
--
tion of land less than ceiling limit-Not declaration and not appeal-
able-Revisionary power-Exercise of-Whether any bar operates. ....
D Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act,
1961-Sections 3, 14 to 20, 21, 45, read with Section 11, Code of Civil
Procedur:e, 190~etem1ination of surplus land in a subsequent proceed-
ings-Detennining holding in earlier proceedings-Whether operates as res
judicata.

E Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings), Act,
1961-Section 45--Suo motu revision Detennination of holding-Inclusion of
the extent of land received by exchange-Theory of exchange dis- ~
believed-Whether the extent of land to be excluded.

Appellant No. 1-land holder filed a return of his holding under the
F provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings),
Act, 1961. The Collector after making inquiry held that as his total holding
of agricultural lands was 124 acres 23 guntas (converted into dry lands)
and having regard to the number of his family members the appellant No.
1 was not a surplus holder. -t
G
Though the order of the Collector was in favour of the appellant No. -
1, he filed an appeal before the Revenue Tribunal, contending that he was
not holding 124 acres 23 guntas of land and that his holding was lesser
than that. The appeal was dismissed summarily.

H Sometime after the disposal of the appeal, the Additional Commis- 4/.
466
G. G. PAWAR v. STATE 467
).-
sioner issued a notice u/s. 45 ofthe Act to the appellant No. 1 calling upon A
him to show cause as to why the Collector's order be not revised; his
holding be determined at 231 acres and why the surplus should not be
directed to be surrendered.

Appellant No.1 submitted his objection u/s.45(2), proviso contending
that when an appeal was filed against the order of the Collector, the pl).wer of B
suo motu revision was not available to the Commissioner u/s.45 of the Act.

The Additional Commissioner rejected the preliminary objection
-- )--
and passed an order on merits, holding that the holding of fands of the
first appellant was 202 acres and 31 guntas (when converted into dry crop c
land), that be was entitled to retain only an extent of 160 acres and that
,,,_ he was a surplus bolder to an extent of 42 acres 31 guntas. The matter was
remitted to the S.D.O. for delimiting the surplus area.

The appellants questioned the validity of the Commissioners' order
by way of a writ petition in the High Court, contending that inasmuch as D
the order of the Collector was appealed against, it could no longer be
revised by the Commissioner in view of the express bar contained in the
proviso to Section 45(2) and further and that the lands he obtained by way
of exchange as well his lands which were given away under the said
exchange, were both included in his holding. E
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, against which the ap-
pellants filed this appeal with the leave of this Court.

The appellants contended that the appeal preferred by the appellant
No. 1 before the Revenue Tribunal was a proper and competent appeal. F
Though that appeal was dismissed, it operated as a bar to the exercise of
--4... the revisory power under Section 45(2), proviso.

' The respondent submitted that an appeal was maintainable against
the declaration or a part thereof. The part which was not appealed against
was open to revision under Section 45(a); that the provision in Section 33 G
providing for a right of appeal and the provision of Section 45(2) confer-
ring a supervisory power in the Government/Commissioner must be bar·
y monised so as to give both the provisions their due play; that mere
rejection of theory of exchange did not necessarily mean that the extent in
gut No. 521 should be excluded from the appellants' holding when they H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A themselves claim that it was theirs.
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD : 1.01. The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and
Holdings) Act, 1961 was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature with a
B view to impose a maximum limit (ceiling) on the holding of agricultural
land in the State of Maharashtra and to provide for the acquisition and
distribution of the land held in excess of such ceiling. [ 472B]

c
1.02. The Act is not intended to determine or declare titles. The
finding as to the extend of a holding of a person under the Act is only a
step towards its object an intermediate stage. [476G]
--
1.03. A person holding agricultural lands below the ceiling limit can --f
acquire land only upto the ceiling limit but not above such limit. Evidently,
acquisition of any land in excess of such limit is liable to be surrendered
D under the Act. [472D-E]

2.01. Section 21 makes it clear that the "declaration" contemplated by
it is to be made only in the case of a surplus holder. The declaration has to
contain the various particulars mentioned in clauses(a) to (e) of sub-sec-
tion (1). This should be followed by 2 statement containing particulars of
E the land delimited as surplus. This statement has to be published in the
village and other specified places. Sub-section (3) provides that the Collec-
tor shall take possession of the surplus land soon after "the an'louncement
of the declaration", whereupon it shall vest in the State. All this shows that
no "declaration" is to be made under Section 21 in the case of a person/fami-
ly unit whose holding does not exceed the ceiling limit. [4748-C]
F
2.02. An appeal is provided only against a "declaration" made under
Section 21 and not against any of the orders made under Sections 14 to
20. A mere determination or a finding or order that a person/family unit
holds land less than the ceiling limit is not a "declaration" and, therefore,
G not appealable. [476F]

2.03 Section 45 \"ests in the State Government the power of control
and supenision over the officers under the Act, which power can be
delegated by the Government to the Commissioner. [475EJ

H 2.04. The High Court was right in holding that the order of the

,,..
G. G. PAWAR v. STATE [REDDY, J.] 469

Collector in the case of the first appellant was not appealable. The appeal A
)-- tiled by him was one not provided by iaw and, hence, no appeal in the eye
of law. Such an incompetent appeal could not operate as a bar to the
exercise of revisory power under Section 45(2). (476F-G]

3. In the subsequent proceedings for determining the surplus land,
the order in the earlier proceedings determining one's holding at a par- B
ticu!ar figure, may not operate as res judicata. [477A]

4. It is no one's case that the appellant acquired the extent of U
acres 24 guntas iil gut No. 521 in some manner other than the exchange
put forward by him. That area ought to be excluded from his holding once
the theory of exchange is disbelieved and when the extent in gut Nos. 462
c
.,...
and 463 is also included in his holding. [478B]

,,.., CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 660 of
1981.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.1979 of the Bombay High
Court in Special Civil Application No. 439 of 1975.

P.H. Parekh for the Appellants.

V.BJoshi and A.S.Bhasme for the Respondent. E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
,.}-
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. First appellant-land holder filed a return
of his holding under as required by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act). After making the necessary in- F
quiry, the Collector, Puna by his order dated 2nd January, 1969 held that
the first appellant's total holding of agtjc~tural lands as on the relevant
date was 124 acres 23 guntas (converted into dry lands) whereas according
-:'- to the Act. and haying regard to the number of members in his family be
~
was entitled to hold 128 acres. Accordingly, he held that the first appellant
was not a surplus holder. Notwithstanding the fact that the said order was G
in his favour, the first appellant filed an appeal before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal. His contention was that the finding of the Collector that
he was _holding 124 acres 23 guntas of land is not correct and that he must
be held to be holding a far lesser extent. This appeal was dismissed
)ii summarily on 16.12.1971. The Tribunal did not think it fit to issue a notice H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 2 S.C.R.

A even to the respondent in the said appeal. Sometime after the dismissal of
the appeal, the Additional Commissioner, Puna Division issued a notice to
the first appellant under Section 45 calling upon him to show cause as to
why the order of the Collector, Poona dated 2nd January, 1969 be not
revised and his holding be determined at 231 acres and why the surplus
should not be directed to be surrendered. The first appellant submitted his
B- objections wherein he inter alia raised an objection with respect to the
validity of the said notice. The said objection was based upon the proviso
to Sub-section (2) of Section 45 viz., inasmuch as an appeal has been filed
against the order of the Collector, the power of suo .motu revision is no
lunger available to the Commissioner. This preliminary objection was
C overritled by the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 6.12.1971.
He then went into the merits of the case and passed an order on 23'.9.1974
holding that the total holding of the first appellant as on the relevant date
is 202 acres and 31 guntas (when converted into dry crop land) and since
he is entitled to retain only an extent of 160 acres, he is a surplus holder
D to an extent of 42 acres 31 guntas. He remitted the matter to the S.D.O.
for delimiting the surplus area. It my be mentioned that before passing the
said final order, the Commissioner had issued notices to and heard appel-
lants 2 to 4, inasmuch as their rights were sought to be affected by him.

The appellants questioned the validity of the Commissioner's order
E by way of a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 439 of 1975
in the Bombay High Court. The_ main contention urged in the said writ
petition was based upon the proviso to Section 45(2). It was that inasmuch
as the order of the Collector was appealed against, it could not longer be
revised by the Commissioner in view of the express bar contained in the
F said proviso. On merits, the only contention urged pertained to the in-
clusion of the lands transferred by him by way of exchange. Besides the
lands he obtained by way of exchange, his lands given away under exchange
--
were also included in his holding. This, according to the appellant:;, was
unjust and illegal. Both the contentions were negatived by a Division Bench _J
G of the Bombay High Court whereupon the appellants ha.ve filed this appeal
with the leave of this court. The main contention urged before us by Sri
P.H. Parekh, learned counsel for
the appellants is again based upon the
proviso to Section 45(2). His contention, properly elaborated, runs thus:
for the purpose of determining whether a person/family unit holds land ·in
excess of the ceiling area, it is necessary for the Collector to determine
H the holding of such person/family unit. Even where the Collector hofds. that
G. G. PAWAR v. STATE [REDDY, J.] 471

the holding of a person/family unit is below the ceiling limit, he has to and A
does determine the extent of holding of such .person/family unit. If one
looks to Section 9, the relevance of such a finding (even where the finding
is that the land held by such person/family is below the ceiling) would
become evident. A person/family unit holding !and less than the ceiling
area is entitled to acquire, after the 'commencement date', land upto the
ceiling limit but not beyond. If so, a land holder whose holding has been
B
determined at a particular figure (though below the ceiling limit) may yet
be aggrieved if his case is that his holding is actually lesser than what has
been determined by the Collector. For, his right to acquire further land
after the commencement date depends upon such a finding. It, therefore,
follows - says the counsel - that the appeal preferred by the first appellant c
before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was a proper and competent
appeal. May be that appeal has been dismissed, yet it operates as a bar to
the exe·rcise of the revisory power under Section 45(2), says the counsel.

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, it may be noticed p
rejected the contention in the following words :

"Now it is no doubt that the petitioner in this case had filed an
appeal, even through the petitioner could not be said to have
been aggrieved by another order made by the Coliector. The E
appeal provided by Section 33 of the Act is an appeal against
the declaration or any part thereof made under sec.tion 21 of
the Act. If we refer to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act,
it refers to the declaration in respect of the surplus land in
respect of which right, title and interest of the person of family F
unit holding it is to be forfeited to the State Government. It is
no doubt true that even if an appeal against part of the decla-
ration under section 21(1) is contemplated, the order made by
the Collector in the instant proceeding, when he held that the
petitioner did not have any surpius land, was not a declaration G
under section 21 and the appeal was, therefore, be taken into
account for holding that it created a bar against the exercise
of revisional jurisdiction. The Commissioner was, therefore, in
our view, quite justified in ignoring the appeal which was filed
by the Petitioner which was clearly not maintainable and he
was entitled to exercise his revisional jurisdiction in the matter.',. H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.

A The learned cou.:1sel for the appellant disputes the correctness of the
above reasoning. For a proper appreciation of the contention urged by Sri
Parekh, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.

The Act was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature with a view to
impose a maximum limit (ceiling) on the holding of agricultural land in the
B
State of Maharashtra and to provide for the acquisition and distribution of
the land held in excess of such ceiling. Section 3 declares that after the
'commencement date', no person or family unit shall hold land in excess
of ceiling area as determined in the manner provided in the Act. Section
12 obliges every person holding land in excess of the ceiling area to submit
c a retunJ of his holding within the time and in the manner prescribed.
Section 5 prescribes the ceiling area. Section 9 declares further that "no
person or a member of the family unit shall at any time, on or after the
commencement date, acquire by transfer of the land if he, or as the case
may be, that family unit already holds land in excess of the ceiling area or
D land which together with any other land holding by such person, or as the
case may be, the family unit, will exceed in the total the ceiling area." In
other words, a person holding agricultural lands below the ceiling limit can
acquire land only upto the ceiling limit but not above such limit. Evidently,
acquisition of any land in excess of such limit is liable to the surrendered
under the Act. Section 14 provides for an enquiry by the Collector on the
E basis of the return filed or suo motu to "determine the surplus land held
by such person or family." Section 16 provides for giving a choice to the
surplus land holder to select the land which he wishes to retain upto the
ceiling area. Section 18 specifies several matters which the Collector shall
consider. These matters include "whether any land held by the
F holder ............. should be deemed to be surplus land under any of the
provisions of this Act" and "which particular lands out of the total land
held by the holder should be delimited as surplus land ?" Sections 19 and
20 provide for restoration of surplus land held by a tenant to the .}
landholder, in accordance with the relevant tenancy law, to facilitate it
being surrendered. Section 21 then provides for making a 'declaration' on
G the basis of the determination already made under Sections 14 and 19.
Sub-section (1) of Section 21 and Sub-section (2) thereof read as follows:

"21.(l) As soon as may be after the Collector has considered
the matters referred to in section 18 and the questions, if any,
H under sub-section (3) of Section 20, he shall make a declaration
G. G. PAWAR v. STAIB [REDDY, J.] 473

>- stating therein his decision on--- A
(a) the total area of land which the person (or family unit)
is entitled to hold as the ceiling area;

(b) the total area of land which is in excess of the ceiling
area; B
(c) the name of the (landlord) to whom possession of land
is to be restored under section 19, and area and par-

---
., ~
ticulars of such land;

(d) the area, description and full particulars of the land
which is delimited as surplus land;
c
(e) the area and (particulars of land out of surplus land, in
respect of which the right, title and interest of the person
(or family unit) holding it) is to be forfeited to the State
Government. D

(The Collector shall announce his declaration in the
presence of his holder and other persons interested who
are presented at the time of such declaration.)

(2) After a declaration under sub-section (1) is made (the E
Collector shall prepare a statement in the prescribed form
giving details of the area), description and full particulars of

- the land which is delimited as surplus land, (and also of the
land therefrom, the right, title and interest in which is) to be
forfeited to the State Government. (The Collector shall affix a F
copy of the statement at the village Chawdi or any other
-..L prominent place at the village and shall also despatch a copy

' of the statement to the person or to the member of the family
unit interested in the land delimited as surplus. On the date of
the announcement of the declaration mentioned in the preced-
ing sub-section), (the right, title and interest in the land which) G
is liable to forfeiture shall stand forfeited to and vest in the
State Government. (on and after the date of announcement of
)t the declaration) no sale, gift, mortgage, exchange, lease of any
other disposition (including any transfer in execution of a I
decree or order of a court, tribunal or authority) shall be made H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A of the land which is delimited as surplus land. If any such
....
·disposition or transfer is made, it shall be invalid, and of no
effect."

.
A reading of Section 21 makes it dear that the "declaration" con-
templated by it is to be made only in the car.e of a surplus holder. The
B declaration has to contain the various particulars mentioned in clauses (a)
to (e) of Sub-section (1). This should be followed by a statement containing
particulars of the land delimited as surplus. This statement has to be
published in the village and other specified places. Sub-section (3) provides
that the Collector shall take possession of the surplus land soon after "the --JI
~
c
.
announcement of the declaration'', whereupon it shall vest in the State. All
this shows that no "declaration" is to be made under Section 21 in the case
of a person/family unit whose holding does not exceed the ceiling limit.

Section 33 makes certain specified orders and declaration made
under Section 21 appealable. Sub-sections (1) and (lA) of Section 33 read
D as follows:

"33.(1) An appeal against an order or award of the Collector
shall lie to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the following
cases:
E . (1) and order under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 13 -I..-
(not being an order under which a true and correct
return complete in all particulars is required to be fur-

F
nished);

(2) a declaration or any part thereof under section 21;
-
(~A) an order under section 21-A; .
)
(3) an award under section 25;

G (4) ari order refusing sanction to transfer or divide land
under section 29; ·

(5) an order of forfeiture under sub-section (3) of section

H
29;

(6) an amendment of declaration or award under section
"'
G. G. PAWAR v. STATE [REDDY, J.J 475

37; and A
(7) an order of summary eviction under section 40.

(lA) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from
any part of the decision, order, declaration or award, may not
only support the decision, order, declaration or award, as the B
case may be, on any of the grounds decided against him, but
take cross-objection to the decision, order, declaration or
award which he could have taken by way of an appeal:

-- Provided that, he has filed the objection in the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal within thirty days from the date of service C
on him of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or
such further time as the Tribunal may see fit to allow; and
thereupon, the provisions or order 41, rule 22 of the First
Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shail apply in
relation to the cross-objection as they apply in relation to the D
crnss-objection under that rule."

Section 45 vests in the State Government the power of control and
supervision over the officers under the Act, which power can be delegated
by the Government to the Commissioner. It would be appropriate to read
section 45 in its entirety at this stage: E
"45.(1) In all matters connected with this Act, the State Govern-
ment shall have the same authority and control over the officers
authorised under section 27, the Collectors and the Commis-
sioners acting under this Act, as they do in the general and
revenue administration. F
(2) The State Government may, suo motu or on an application
made to it by the aggrieved person, at any time, call for the
record of any inquiry or proceedings under sections 17 to 21
(both inclusive) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the G
legality or propriety of any inquiry or proceedings (or any part
thereof) under those sections and may pass such order thereon
as it deems fit, after giving the party a reasonable opportunity
of being heard.

Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall entitle the State H
'
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 2 S.C.R.

A Government to call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings
of a declaration or part thereof under section 21 in relation to
any land, unless an appeal against such declaration or part
thereof has not been filed within the period provided for it and
a period of three years from the date of such declaration or
part thereof has not elapsed.
B
{3) The State Government may, subject to such restrictions and
conditions as it may ·impose by notification in the Official
Gazette, delegate to the Commissioner the power conferred on
it by sub-section (2) of this section or under any other
c provisions of this Act except the power to make rules under
section 46 or to make an order under section 49."

s.ub-section {2) confers a suo motu power of revision upon the State
Government for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or
propriety of any inquiry or proceedings under sections 17 to 21 - which
D means the inquiry by and proceedings of the Colle_ctor. The proviso,
however, says that this power "to call for the record of any enquiry or
proceedings of a declaration or part thereof under Section 21 in relation
to any land" shall not be available if an appeal has been filed against such
declaration or part thereof. (We are not concerned with the other restric-
E tion prescribed by the proviso).

A review of the above provisions clearly discloses the scheme of the
Act. In particular, it shows that an appeal is provided only against a
"declaration" made under section 21 and not against any of the orders
made under Sections 14 to 20. A mere determination or a finding or order
F that a person/family unit holds land less than the ceiling limit is not a
"declaration" and, therefore, not appealable. The Bombay High Court was;
therefore, right in holding that the order of the Collector dated 2nd
January, 1969 in the case of the first appellant was not appealable. The.
appeal filed by him was one not provided by law and, hence, no appeal in j
G the eye of law. Such an incompetent appeal could not operate as a bar to
the exercise of revisory power under section 45(2). After all, it should not
be forgotten, the Act is not intended to determine or declare titles. The
finding as to the extent of a holding of a person under the Act is only a
step towards its object - an intermediate stage.

H So far as the argument of Sri Parekh with reference to Section 9 is
G. G. PAWAR v. STATE [REDDY, J.] 477

concerned it is really not necessary to deal with it in view of our view A
aforesaid. Perhaps, in the subsequent proceedings (taken for determining
the surplus land held by him in view of acquisition of fresh land after the
'commencement date'), the order in earlier proceedings determining his
holding at a particular figure may not operate as res judicata, though it
would be certainly relevant.
B
The learned counsel for the respondents has put forward another
submission to support the Commissioner's order. His submission runs thus:
an appeal lies against the declaration or a part thereof. The part which is
not appealed against is open to revision under section 45(a). In the case
of a given person it may be held that he holds only an extent of 2 acres in C
excess of the permissible ceiling area. He may be aggrieved with that
finding and may have appealed against it. He says that a particular extend
of land should not be included in his holding. But the Commissioner thinks
that the person really holds 20 acres in excess of the permissible ceiling
area and not merely 2 acres. In other words, he wants to include some D
extent of land in the holding of such person which has not been so included
by the Collector in his holding. Since the said aspect is not the subject
matter of appeal preferred by the person, it is open to revision under
Section 45(2) by the Government/Commissioner. He submits that the
provision in Section 33 providing for a right of appeal and the provision of E
Section 45(2) conferring a supervisory power in the Government/Commis-
sioner must be harmonised so as to give both the provisions their due play.
He submits that his interpretation is consistent with the scheme and object
of the Act and goes to effectuate and advance the purposes of the Act. We
do not, however, think it necessary to express any opinion on this submis-
sion for the purposes of this appeal. F

There remains the other submission of Sri Parekh with respect to the
exchange of 10 acres 20 guntas out of gut Nos. 462 and 463 (belonging to
him) with 12 acres 24 guntas out of gut No.521 (belonging to his step-
brother, Sadashiv). His grievance is that both the extents are included in G
the appellants holding while disbelieving the theory of exchange put for-
ward by him. Sri Parekh submits that if the theory of exchange is rejected
then the extent of 12 acres 24 guntas in gut No.521 cannot be included in
the appellant's holding. To this the counsel for respondents submits that
mere rejection of theory of exchange does not necessarily mean that the H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A extent in gut No.521 should be excluded from the appellants' holding when
they themselves claim that it is theirs. He suggests that the appellants may
have acquired the said extent in some other manner than the alleged
exchange. We, however, do not see any justification in the facts and
circumstances of this case, for including .both the said extents in the
B . appellant's holding. It is no one's case that the appellant acquired extent
in gut No.521 in some manner other than the exchange put forward by him.
If so, we are of the opinion that the said extent in gut No.521 ought to be
excluded from his holding once the theory of exchange is disbelieved and
in
when the extent gut Nos.462 and 463 is also included in his holding. The

c Collector shall take action accordingly.

Subject to the above modificaiton, the appeal is diposed of. No costs.
--
V.P.R. Partly allowed.

-L

,