1987 (1) TMI 491 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Power of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.) to remand proceedings.
2. Validity of remand order in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the State.
3. Validity of oral partition claimed by the petitioners.
4. Determination of pot-kharab land.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Power of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.) to Remand Proceedings:

The petitioners argued that the M.R.T. lacked the power to remand proceedings in an appeal under section 33 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 ("Old Ceiling Act"). They contended that the powers of the M.R.T. in appeal are codified in section 34 of the Old Ceiling Act, which does not explicitly include the power to remand. The court examined section 33(3) of the Old Ceiling Act, which provides that the M.R.T. shall exercise all the powers and follow the same procedure as a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) when deciding appeals. The court concluded that the power to remand is inherent in appellate jurisdiction and is necessary to ensure justice. It further noted that section 34 is merely declaratory and that the M.R.T. inherently possesses the power to remand proceedings, as supported by the provisions of section 33(3) of the Old Ceiling Act.

2. Validity of Remand Order in the Absence of an Appeal or Cross-Objection by the State:

The petitioners argued that since the State did not file an appeal or cross-objection, the M.R.T. lacked jurisdiction to remand the case for a fresh decision. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Chandra & others (AIR 1986 SC 1192), which held that if the surplus holder does not object to the remand order and submits to the trial court's jurisdiction, they cannot later challenge the remand order. The court found that the petitioners had submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction after the remand and, therefore, could not now contest the validity of the remand order. The court rejected the petitioners' contention, affirming the M.R.T.'s power to remand the proceedings.

3. Validity of Oral Partition Claimed by the Petitioners:

The petitioners claimed that an oral partition of the land was effected on 15-12-1957, supported by the testimony of Dr. Gholap and Patwari Wadgu. However, the court noted that the alleged partition was only recorded in the revenue records on 07-01-1962. The lower courts found the evidence of Dr. Gholap insufficient to prove the partition, as it did not establish that the petitioner No. 1 was examined by him around the time of the alleged partition. The court also found the testimony of Patwari Wadgu unreliable, as there was no evidence that the oral partition was officially noted in 1957. The court concluded that the lower courts' findings on the partition were not perverse and could not be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction.

4. Determination of Pot-Kharab Land:

The petitioners contested the determination of pot-kharab land. The M.R.T. had previously remanded the case, stating that the Naib Tahsildar's report allowing 6.51 acres of pot-kharab land was not sufficient evidence. After remand, the S.D.O. determined the pot-kharab land based on khasra entries, as the petitioners failed to provide independent evidence. The court upheld the S.D.O.'s determination, noting that the petitioners bore the burden of proving the pot-kharab land, particularly after the Naib Tahsildar's report was excluded.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the M.R.T.'s power to remand proceedings and the validity of the remand order despite the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the State. The court also upheld the lower courts' findings on the oral partition and the determination of pot-kharab land. There was no order as to costs.