Holding

Land held by a tenant cannot be excluded from the owner's holding under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, and the owner cannot be permitted to surrender such land to stay within the ceiling.

Summary

Sh. Kishandas Kanahiyalal Gandhi was declared to have a surplus of 45 acres 30 guntas of agricultural land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. He argued that the tenant, Om Prakash, had crystallised tenancy rights over 47 acres 17 guntas, thereby removing the surplus, and alternatively sought permission to surrender the land claimed by the tenant to stay within the ceiling limit. He further contended that under the Tenancy Act he had lost ownership of the land in possession of the tenant, so it should not be counted as his holding. The Bombay High Court rejected these contentions, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision, holding that the tenant’s claim, once rejected, became final and could not be used to exclude the land from the appellant’s ownership for purposes of the ceiling act. Consequently, the appellant remains the owner of the land and cannot be allowed to surrender it, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether land held by a tenant under the Tenancy Act can be excluded from the owner's holding under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.
Whether the appellant can be permitted to surrender land claimed by the tenant to bring his holdings within the statutory ceiling.
Whether the tenant's possession under the Tenancy Act divests the owner of ownership for the purpose of the ceiling legislation.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961

Subjects

agricultural land ceilingsurplus landtenancy rightsownershipland holdingsurrender of landMaharashtra

Judgment

SH. KISHANDAS KANHAIYALAL GANDHI A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANR.

MARCH 1, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J

Maharastra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961-Ex-
clusion of lands which were under the possession of Tenant under Tenancy
Act-Held cannot be excluded from owners' holding.
c
The appellant was found to be in surplus of agricultural land to an
extent of 45 acres 30 guntas under Maharastra Agricultural Lands (Ceil·
ing on Holdings) Act, 1961. The contention of the appellant" was that he
was not having any surplus land as the tenant has crystalised his rights
to be a tenant in respect of 47 acres and 17 guntas of land. It was D
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
j tenant so that he retains the land within the· ceiling limit. It was further
contended that the tenant was in possession of the land and the appellant
had no right over those lands under the Tenancy Act, as he lost his right
·· as owner and therefore such land cannot be included as his holding. High E
Court rejected the contention of the appellant. Aggrieved by the order, the
.appellants preferred the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
_/ F
HELD: All the proceedings were initiated by the tenant of the appel·
lant only after the appellant submitted his statement claiming those
properties. The tenant allowed the orders made under the Act rejecting his
claim as tenant to become final. The same land would not be excluded on
the premise that the tenant became deemed owner/tenant by operation of G
orders made under the 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 lands aid to be in possession of the
tenant. [424-H, 425-A-B] H
423
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.~ of
1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.1988 of the Bombay High
Court in LP.A. No. 148 of 1986.

.B U .R. Lalit and U .R. Lalit for the· Appellant.

A.S. Bhasme and Ashok K. Gupta (NP) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Bombay
c High Court dated January 10, 1988 in L.P.A. No. 148 of 1986. The facts in
)1··
I

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
Om 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.

E We do not find any force in either of the contentions. It is admitted
in 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
F 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.

G 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
H after the appellant submitted his statement claiming those properties. He
K.K. GANDHI v. STAIB OFMAHARASHIRA 425

allowed the orders made under the Act rejecting his claim as tenant to A
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 B
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.

KS.D. Appeal dismissed C