High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Surplus Land Declaration Under Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 — Petitioner Failed to Appear or Argue, No Merit Found.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 17
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Vishwanath s/o Narsing Sodgir, a resident of Gangakhed, District Beed, filed a writ petition challenging the declaration of surplus land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. On 29.11.1975, respondent No.2 initiated an enquiry, and after completion, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (respondent No.3) declared the petitioner as a surplus holder of 4 acres 2 gunthas vide judgment and order dated 25.03.1976. The petitioner contended that the declaration was erroneous. However, on the date of hearing, none appeared for the petitioner, and the court perused the petition and annexures. The court found no substance in the petition and dismissed it with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Land Ceiling - Surplus Land Determination - Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - The petitioner challenged the declaration of 4 acres 2 gunthas as surplus land by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, noting the petitioner's absence and lack of representation. (Para 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner's challenge to the declaration of surplus land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, has any merit.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Land Ceiling
  • Surplus Land Determination
  • Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961
  • Writ Jurisdiction
  • Dismissal for Non-Prosecution
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 7

Writ Petition No. 3150 of 1992

2011-03-08

S.S. Shinde

Mr. P.P. More, A.G.P. for the respondents

Vishwanath s/o Narsing Sodgir

State of Maharashtra, Additional Commissioner Aurangabad, Surplus Land Determination Tribunal Gangakhed

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the declaration of surplus land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to quash the declaration of surplus land.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was declared a surplus holder of 4 acres 2 gunthas by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal.

Previous Decisions

Surplus Land Determination Tribunal declared petitioner as surplus holder vide judgment and order dated 25.03.1976.

Issues

Whether the declaration of surplus land was valid under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.

Submissions/Arguments

None appeared for the petitioner. Respondents argued through A.G.P. Mr. P.P. More.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no substance in the petition and dismissed it for lack of merit and non-appearance of the petitioner.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner herein is resident of village Gangakhed, Dist. Beed. It is case of the petitioner that on 29.11.1975 respondent No.2 had initiated enquiry under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Procedural History

The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal declared the petitioner as surplus holder on 25.03.1976. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in 1992. The petition was heard on 08.03.2011 and dismissed.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Civil Court Decree in Tenancy Land Sale Dispute — Compromise Decree and Sale Deed Upheld as Valid. Transfer of Property Act Sections 41 and 51 Protect Bona Fide Purchaser from Ostensible Owner, and Civi...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Revenue Appeal in Central Excise Valuation Case — Related Party Transactions Must Be Valued Under Rule 11 CEVR Read with Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Circular dated 01.07.2002 Clarifying Valuation Method for Mix...