Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a second appeal challenging the judgment and order of the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, which had dismissed the State's appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree in Regular Civil Suit No.571 of 1981. The original plaintiffs had sought a declaration that orders passed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 were null and void, and for consequential reliefs, relying on the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shankarrao v. State of Maharashtra. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appeal by the State was dismissed. In the second appeal, the State argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Shrikant Bhalchandra Karulkar v. State of Gujarat had overruled the Full Bench judgment. However, the matter was referred to a larger Bench, and the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, by judgment dated 16/10/2009, held that the Supreme Court had neither overruled the Full Bench nor held it to be an incorrect exposition of law. The Full Bench clarified that Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Act is entirely different from Section 6(3-A) of the Gujarat Act, and the view of the Full Bench that Section 3(2) had extra-territorial operation and was beyond legislative competence was approved by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the provision cannot be given effect to. The short controversy in the appeal was whether land owned by the plaintiffs situated in other States could be considered for determining surplus land. In light of the Full Bench judgment, the court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the plaintiffs and dismissed the second appeal. The civil application was also disposed of.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Legislative Competence - Extra-Territorial Operation - Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - The issue was whether the State Legislature had competence to enact a provision that considered land held outside Maharashtra for determining surplus land. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held that Section 3(2) had extra-territorial operation and was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, and this view was approved by the Supreme Court in Shrikant Bhalchandra Karulkar v. State of Gujarat. The court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the provision cannot be given effect to. (Paras 6-7)
B) Land Ceiling - Surplus Land Determination - Consideration of Land Outside State - Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - The short controversy was whether land owned by the plaintiffs in other States could be considered for deciding surplus land. Relying on the Full Bench judgment in Shankarrao v. State of Maharashtra, the court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that such land cannot be considered. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether land owned by the plaintiffs situated in other States of India could be taken into consideration for determining surplus land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. Civil Application disposed of. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the plaintiffs in light of the Full Bench judgment dated 16/10/2009.
Law Points
- Extra-territorial operation of state legislation
- legislative competence
- interpretation of Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act
- 1961
- binding effect of Full Bench judgment
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 1960
Second Appeal No.411 of 1990 with Civil Application No.2431 of 1993
Mr. V.S. Mhaispurkar (AGP for Appellant), Mr. J. Shekhar i/b M/s J. Shekhar & Co. for Respondent No.2
The State of Maharashtra, Chairman, Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Ajara, District Kolhapur, Chairman, Lands Distribution Tribunal, Ajara, District Kolhapur
Shri Murarrao Malojirao Ghorpade, Smt. Ashwanidevi W/o Shanbhushing Ghorpade, Shri Daulatrao Shambhusing Ghorpade (minor through G.A.L.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal by the State of Maharashtra against concurrent judgments of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration that orders under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 are null and void.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought declaration that orders passed under the Act are null and void and consequential reliefs.
Filing Reason
The State challenged the decree on the ground that the Supreme Court's judgment in Shrikant Bhalchandra Karulkar v. State of Gujarat had overruled the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shankarrao v. State of Maharashtra.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suit on 15/10/1983 in Regular Civil Suit No.571 of 1981. First appeal (Civil Appeal No.46 of 1984) was dismissed by the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolhapur.
Issues
Whether land owned by the plaintiffs situated in other States of India could be taken into consideration for determining surplus land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State) argued that the Supreme Court in Shrikant Bhalchandra Karulkar v. State of Gujarat had taken a view that similar provision in Gujarat Act is not extra-territorial, and thus the State has legislative competence.
Respondents (Plaintiffs) relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shankarrao v. State of Maharashtra, which held that Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Act has extra-territorial operation and is unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi
The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held that Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 has extra-territorial operation and is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. This view was approved by the Supreme Court in Shrikant Bhalchandra Karulkar v. State of Gujarat, which distinguished the provision from the Gujarat Act. Therefore, land outside Maharashtra cannot be considered for determining surplus land under the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The Full Bench of this Court has clearly held that the judgment of the Apex Court in Shrikant Bhalchandra Karulkar and others vs. State of Gujarat and another has neither overruled the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Shankarrao and others vs. State of Maharashtra nor it could be said that the said judgment had decided the exposition of law.
The Full Bench also held that the provisions of section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Act are 'entirely different' from section 6(3-A) of the Gujarat Act.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.571 of 1981 which was decreed on 15/10/1983. State filed Civil Appeal No.46 of 1984 which was dismissed by the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. State then filed Second Appeal No.411 of 1990. The matter was referred to a larger Bench and the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court delivered judgment on 16/10/2009. Thereafter, the second appeal was heard and dismissed on 1/7/2011.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961: Section 3(2)
- Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960: Section 6(3-A)
