Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two review applications (Miscellaneous Civil Application No.81/1999 and No.86/1999) filed by purchasers of agricultural land from a surplus land owner, Leelabai Gopaldas Zanvar. The applicants, Himmatrao Gawande and Vishnu Vairale, sought review of a Division Bench judgment dated 30.07.1998 in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 171/1993 and 172/1993, which had dismissed their appeals against orders of the Divisional Commissioner under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The facts are undisputed: Himmatrao purchased 4 acres from Survey No.22/1 on 29.07.1978 and 21.02.1979, and Vishnu purchased 4 acres from Survey No.22/2 on 21.02.1979, both from Leelabai. Notices under Section 27 of the Ceiling Act were issued to them on 14.09.1990 for distribution of surplus land held by Leelabai. They filed revisions under Section 45-A(2) before the Divisional Commissioner, which were dismissed on 16.02.1993. The Commissioner found that 123.24 acres of land was declared surplus from Leelabai's holding on 30.12.1983. The applicants then filed writ petitions (W.P. No.2285/1993 and 2284/1993), which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge, and subsequently Letters Patent Appeals, which were also dismissed by the Division Bench on 30.07.1998. In the present review applications, the court examined whether any error apparent on the face of the record existed. The court noted that the review applicants were in possession under an interim order dated 31.08.1999, but found no merit in the review. The court held that the purchasers cannot claim better rights than their vendor, and the earlier judgment was correct. The review applications were dismissed, and the interim order was vacated. The court also noted that the review applicants' advocate appeared without instructions, and respondent no.2 (the vendor) did not appear despite service.
Headnote
A) Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Scope of Review - The court considered whether the review applicants demonstrated any error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgment. Held that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided. The applicants failed to point out any mistake or omission in the judgment under review (Paras 1-5). B) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - Surplus Land - Purchaser's Rights - Section 27 - The review applicants, who purchased land from a surplus land owner (Leelabai), challenged notices under Section 27 for distribution of surplus land. The court held that the purchasers cannot claim any better rights than their vendor, and the earlier judgment dismissing their appeals was correct. No review warranted (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review applicants (purchasers from a surplus land owner) have made out a case for review of the judgment dated 30.07.1998 in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 171/1993 and 172/1993.
Final Decision
Both review applications are dismissed. The interim order dated 31.08.1999 protecting possession of review applicants stands vacated. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction limited to error apparent on face of record
- not re-appreciation of evidence
- Purchaser from surplus land holder cannot claim better rights than vendor
- Section 27 notice under Ceiling Act validly served
- Revision under Section 45-A(2) of Ceiling Act dismissed
- No interference with concurrent findings of fact
