Bombay High Court
Pandharinath Rajaram Jagdale vs Zelabai Bhanudas Shejul And Others on 20 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:22680
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1415 OF 2002 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9018 OF 2024
IN WP/1415/2002
Zelabai w/o Bhanudas Shejul, Died his L.Rs.
1) Tarabai w/o Balasaheb Thombre,
Age: 40 yrs. Occ.: Agri.,
R/o: Dinwada, Tq.Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.
2) Vimalbai w/o Raosaheb Shelke,
Age: 37 yrs. Occ.: Agri..
R/o: Bhagathan, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.
3) Kamalbai w/o Kadu Dhotare,
Age: 35 yrs. occ.: Agri..
R/o: Kate Pimpalgaon,
Tq.Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
4) Shobha w/o Ramnath Nage,
Age: 32 yrs. Occ.: Agri..
R/o: Bhokargaon, Tq. Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.
5) Santosh s/o Bhanudas Shejul,
Age: 30 yrs. Occ.: Agri.,
R/o: Rajure, Tq. Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.
6) Manisha d/o Bhanudas Shejul,
Age: 27 yrs., Occ.: Nil,
R/o: Rajure, Tq. Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.
7) Gaiyatri w/o Sainath Jagtap,
Age: 25 yrs., Occ.: Agri.,
R/o: Bhagathan, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad. ...Petitioners
Umesh PAGE 1 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Hiralal Balchand Jain died, L.Rs.
i) Jawaharlal s/o Hiralal Jain,
Age.58 yrs. occ. Agril.
R/o Lasur Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. A'bad
at present R/o Saubhagya Provision Stores,
Parijatnagar, Nashik 5, Dist. Nashik.
ii) Sumatilal Hiralal Jain,
Age. 56 yrs. Occ. Agril.
R/o Lasur Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. A'bad
at present R/o Saubhagya Provision Stores,
Parijatnagar, Nashik 5, Dist. Nashik.
iii) Suwalal Hiralal Jain,
Age. 54 yrs. occ. Lasur,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
8. Pandharinath S/o Rajaram Jagdale,
Age : 60 years, Occ: Retd. Ex Military,
R/o Lasurgaon, Tq. Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad ...Respondents
...
Mr. C. V. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. R. R. Tandale, AGP for Respondent No. 1
Mr. A. S. Hire h/f Mr. P. V. Barde, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2
Mr. Y. D. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No. 8
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7366 OF 2020
IN RAST/33792/2017
Dada Dhondiba Aaddhane
Age 66 years, Occu: Agriculturist
R/o. Viramgaon, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad
through
General Power of Attorney holder
Umesh PAGE 2 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
Ramesh Suryabhan Shejul
Age: 39 years, Occu: Agriculturist
R/o Rajura, Taluka Vaijapur,
District Aurangabad ...Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra
2. Hiralal Balchand Jain
Since deceased through legal heirs
2A. Jawaharlal hiralal Jain
Age: Major Occu: Agriculturist
2B. Sumantilal Hiralal Jain
Age: Major Occu: Agriculturist
2C. Suwalal Hirala Jain
Age: Major Occu: Agriculturist
2A to 2C R/o Lasur, Taluka Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad ...Respondents
...
Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for Applicant
Ms. R. R. Tandale, AGP for Respondents
***
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J
RESERVED ON : AUGUST 13, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 20, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Writ Petition No. 1415/2022 takes exception to
the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
(for short ‘Tribunal’) dated 27.12.2001 in Appeal No.
43/A/97/A under Section 33 of the Maharashtra
Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for
short ‘Ceiling Act’) dismissing the Appeal filed by the
Umesh PAGE 3 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
Petitioner herein. Whereas the Review Application Stamp
No. 33792/2017, which is filed along with delay
condonation Application, seeks review of order dated
22.04.2002 dismissing the Petition at threshold and by
setting aside the said order of dismissal, on merit
interference is sought in the order passed by Tribunal
in that case.
2. Since the facts involved in both these
proceedings are identical and as the decision of Writ
Petition has bearing on the outcome of Review
Application, same are decided with consent of both
sides by this common judgment.
3. The facts, as they appear from the record, can
be narrated in brief as under:
Petitioner claims to be the owner of the land
admeasuring 4A and 20R from Gut No. 4 situated at
village Rajura, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad vide
registered sale deeds dated 15.04.1969. Similar is the
claim of the Applicant in Review Application. It is not
in dispute that transaction of sale in both cases have
taken place after commencement of the Ceiling Act but
before 26th September, 1970. The subject properties were
Umesh PAGE 4 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odtowned by Hiralal Jain, who has executed the sale deeds
in their favour. Both claim that since time of
execution of the sale deeds, they are in possession of
their respective subject lands. It is claimed by the
Petitioner that on receipt of notice dated 06.08.1997
from the Circle Officer, Vaijapur, it has come to the
notice of the Petitioner about the proceedings under
the Ceiling Act and notice dated 07.08.1997 when the
possession of the subject land was sought to be taken
on the basis of the order passed by the Authority under
the Ceiling Act declaring the land of Hiralal Jain
being excess. Review Applicant had also made identical
claims in his Petition. It is claimed by them that no
notice was issued to them under Section 17(2) of the
Ceiling Act and for want of such notice, the order
passed by the Authority to the extent of their lands is
not maintainable. It is further claimed that Collector
has failed to take into consideration mandatory
provision of the Act and the Tribunal has failed to
appreciate the same.
4. It is contended that Tribunal though has
recorded the contentions of the Petitioner in the order
Umesh PAGE 5 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
impugned, however, Appeal came to be rejected solely on
the ground that order passed under Section 14 of the
Ceiling Act has been upheld up to the Supreme Court.
Tribunal has not dealt with the merit of the Appeal.
Hence, this Petition.
5. Learned Counsels for the Petitioner/Applicant
have drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of
Section 17(2) of the Ceiling Act, which according to
them, mandates issuance of notice to the holder or to
the person interested in the subject land. It is
submitted that on the basis of the registered sale
deeds executed in his favour in the year 1969 by
Hiralal Jain and pursuant thereto, they are in
possession of the lands and have become holder as well
as person interested therein. It is contended that
there was no notice issued under Section 17(2) of the
Ceiling Act to the Petitioner and as a result of which,
the order passed by the Authority under Section 14 of
the Ceiling Act of including the land held by the
Petitioner/Applicant to be excess is not sustainable.
It is their submission that the Tribunal ought to have
taken into consideration the said aspects and would
Umesh PAGE 6 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
have dealt with the merits of the Appeal rather than
its dismissal simply with observations that the
proceedings under Section 14 of the Ceiling Act has
attained finality up to the Supreme Court. It is their
contention that since admittedly the Petitioner
/Applicant were not heard while passing of order under
Section 14 of Ceiling Act and since they are interested
parties, the said order would not bind them.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant in Civil
Application No. 7366 Of 2020 contends that two
Petitions were filed challenging similar order passed
by Tribunal and on the same day, were moved before this
Court. According to him, though they involved same
question of facts and law, one Petition was dismissed
at threshold, whereas companion Petition bearing Writ
Petition No. 1415/2002 came to be admitted. This,
according to him, is clearly an error apparent on the
face of the record and as such, the said order of
dismissal deserves to be set aside and the Petition
needs to be restored. With regard to the condonation of
delay, it is argued that after dismissal of the
Petition, remedies were adopted and no mala fides could
Umesh PAGE 7 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
be attributed to the Applicant.
7. On merit, it is his submission that the entire
scheme of the Ceiling Act does not contemplate
declaration of any transaction after commencement of
the Act to be null and void and only in such case such
transaction can be kept out of the transaction. By
referring to provision of Section 18(2) of the Ceiling
Act, it is his contention that during the enquiry under
Section 14 of the Ceiling Act, it is obligation on the
part of the Collector to consider certain matters and
the transfers of any land from the date of commencement
of the Act till 26.09.1970 are required to be
considered in calculating total ceiling area. Thus, it
is his contention that if the arguments advanced on
behalf of the Intervenor are accepted that there is
complete bar to the transaction and the transaction
would be illegal under Section 8 of the Ceiling Act,
the provision under Section 18(b), which was introduced
by way of amendment by Act 21 of 1975, would become
redundant. In any case, it is his submission that
Petitioner being physical holder of the land and title
holder as well as actual holder i.e., possessing the
Umesh PAGE 8 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
land, is the person interested as contemplated by
Section 17(2) of the Act. He further argued that all
these aspects ought to have been considered by the
Tribunal and, therefore, this is a fit case wherein the
order impugned is set aside and the proceedings are
relegated back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. To
support his submissions, he placed reliance on
following judgments: Shriram s/o Jagoji Brahmane vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others, 2007(2) Mh.L.J. 353,
Pandharinath S/o Vithalrao Awari vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Others, [2009 (2) Mah L R 545] & H. A.
Somvanshi vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1978 (2) MH.
L.R. 73.
8. Learned Counsel for the Intervenor resisted
the Petition and Review Application by submitting that
Section 8 of the Ceiling Act impose restrictions on the
transfer of any land of area after commencement of the
Act. It is his submission that once such restriction is
there, consequences of such transfer would be entail as
provided by Section 10 of the Ceiling Act. He placed
heavy reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in case of Suhas Pralhadrao Deshmukh vs.
Umesh PAGE 9 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
State of Maharashtra, 2007(4) ALL MR 75, to argue that
once the transfer has been effected after coming into
force of the Act, Section 8 would have application to
such transfer. It is his contention that since in view
of the express restriction for transfer of the land, it
cannot be said that the Petitioner has acquired any
interest in the land, which was included in the returns
filed under Section 12 by the land owners. It is his
contention that it would also be relevant to take into
consideration the provision of Section 16 of the Act
while deciding issue involved in the present Petitions.
He has drawn attention of the Court to the fact that in
the instant case proceedings under Section 14 and the
order passed therein have attained finality, by
referring to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Hira Lal (Dead) By Lrs. Etc vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another, 1997(1) BCR 302. Finally, it
is argued that the Intervenor is allotted with the
subject lands long back and his right to receive the
lands cannot be ignored.
9. In order to appreciate rival submissions, it
would be absolutely necessary to take note of the
Umesh PAGE 10 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
relevant provisions of the Act. Firstly, it would be
relevant to take note of Section 8 of the Ceiling Age,
which reads thus:
8. Restriction on transfer.-
Where a person, or as the case may be, a
family unit holds land in excess of the
ceiling area on or after the commencement
date, such person, or as the case may be,
any member of the family unit shall not, on
and after that date, transfer any land,
until the land in excess of the ceiling
area is determined under this Act.
Explanation :- In this section, “transfer”
means transfer, whether by way of sale,
gift, mortgage with possession, exchange,
lease, assignment of land for maintenance,
surrender of a tenancy or resumption of
land by a landlord or any other
disposition, whether by act of parties made
inter vivos or by decree or order of a
court, tribunal or authority (except where
such decree or order is passed in a
proceeding which is instituted in such
Court, Tribunal or before such authority
before the 26th day of September, 1970),
but does not include transfer by way of
sale or otherwise of land for the recovery
of land revenue or for sums recoverable as
arrears of land revenue, or acquisition of
land for a public purpose under any law for
the time being in force.
10. This provision speaks about the restrictions
on the transfer of the land in excess of the ceiling
area after the commencement of the Act until the land
in excess of the ceiling area is determined under this
Umesh PAGE 11 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
Act. Explanation indicates that restrictions applied to
the transfer in any manner does not include transfer by
way of sale or otherwise of the land for the recovery
of the land revenue or acquisition of the land for the
public purpose under the law for the time being in
force. Pertinently, though restrictions are imposed
consequence of any transaction so entered into has not
been provided. The transaction is not deemed to be
invalid.
11. Section 9 deals with the acquisition of the
land in excess of ceiling area. Whereas, section 10
contemplates the consequences of such acquisition after
commencement of the Act. There is also a restriction to
the partition of the lands between family as provided
by Section 11 of the Act.
12. Section 14 enables the Collector to hold an
enquiry in respect of every person holding land in
excess of the ceiling are and determining the surplus
land held by such person or family unit. This exercise
has to be done after the expiry of period referred in
Section 12 of the Act, which mandates submission of
returns by a person or family unit.
Umesh PAGE 12 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
13. It would also be relevant to take note of
Section 17, which reads thus:
17 – Notice to persons affected by enquiry
under section 14.-
(1) For holding an enquiry under section
14, the Collector shall cause public
notice, in the prescribed form, to be given
at convenient places in village or villages
in which the land comprised in the holding
is situate, specifying in the notice the
land in respect of which enquiry is to be
held to ascertain the surplus land (if any)
held by the person or family unit, and
calling upon all persons interested in the
land to submit to the Collector their
objections within a period of fifteen days
from the date of publication of the notice.
Where a public notice has been given as
provided in this sub-section, then the
holder and all persons who are interested
in the land shall be deemed to have been
duly informed of the contents of such
notice. If in the course of any proceedings
a question arises whether a person was duly
informed of the contents of the notice
given in pursuance of this sub-section, the
publication of the notice in the manner
provided in this sub-section shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (2), be conclusive proof that he
was so informed of the contents of such
notice.
(2) The Collector shall serve notices to
the same effect on the holder, and all
other persons who are known or believed to
be interested in the land, calling upon
them to appear before him personally or
through an agent on a date and at a time
and place (such date not being earlier than
fifteen days after the issue of notice), to
be stated in the notice.
Umesh PAGE 13 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
(3) The notices under sub-section (3) may
also call upon the holder –
(a) to state any objections or
suggestions to the particulars given in
the notice;
(b) to show cause, where necessary, why –
(i) any land transferred in
contravention of the provisions of
section 8, or any land transferred
during the period specified in clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 10,
or any land partitioned in
contravention of the provisions of
section 11, should not be taken into
consideration in calculating the
ceiling area, as provided in sub-
section (1) of section 10 or section
11,
(ii) any land acquired in wilful
contravention of section 9 should not
be forfeited, as provided by sub-
section (3) of section 10,
(iii) any land held in excess of the
ceiling area should not be forfeited to
the State Government as provided by
sub-section (3) of section 13,
(iv) any land referred to in sub-
section (2) of section 10 or in section
[11-A] held by him should not be deemed
to be surplus land as provided in that
sub-section or in section [11-A];
(c) to state the land to be retained by the
holder under section 16; and to furnish to
the Collector in the prescribed form, the
prescribed particulars of the land so to be
retained.
Umesh PAGE 14 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
Explanation :- Subject to the provisions of
this Act and of the Amending Act, 1972, in
this section and in the following
provisions of this Act, the expression
‘holder’, unless the context requires
otherwise, includes a family unit.
14. This provision can be divided into two parts,
which requires the Collector to issue public notice in
the prescribed format calling upon all person
interested in the land to submit to the Collector their
objections within a period of 15 days from the date of
publication of the notice. Publication of notice in the
manner provided in this provision and shall be
conclusive proof that the person is informed of the
contents of such notice notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (2).
15. In the backdrop of this provision of public
notice, there is specific provision of service of
notice on specified categories of persons in sub-
section (2). This part of section mandates the
Collector to issue notice to the same effect on the
holder and/or all other persons who are known or
believed to be interested in the land. Such person is
required to show cause as to why land transferred in
Umesh PAGE 15 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
contravention of provision of Section 8 and other
provisions should not be taken into consideration in
calculating the ceiling area as provided by Section (1)
of sections 10 or 11. This provision more than
sufficiently demonstrates that irrespective of the fact
that the transfer effected in favour of a person is hit
by Section 8, a notice is necessarily to be issued to
such person to show cause as to why such land
transferred in contravention of the said provision
should not be taken into consideration while
calculating the ceiling area. This becomes more clear
from provision of Section 18(b). This provision
requires the Collector to consider amongst other
matters following matter:
“Whether any land transferred between the
period from the 26th day of September, 1970
and the commencement date, or any land
partitioned after the 26th day of September,
1970, should be considered or ignored in
calculating the ceiling area as provided by
sub-section (1) of section 10 of section
11”
16. This clearly indicates that it is open for the
Collector, in appropriate cases, to consider or to
Umesh PAGE 16 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
ignore in calculating the area as provided by section
10 of 11, whether any land transferred between the
period of commencement of the Act till 26 September,
1970 or land partitioned after 26 September, 1970.
17. In the light of provisions of law, as narrated
and discussed above, when the Petitioners have come out
with a specific case before Tribunal that there are
registered sale deeds in their favour effected by
original land owner after commencement of the Act
before 26.09.1970, it was incumbent on the part of the
Tribunal to ascertain the said fact and then to decide
as to whether the Petitioners are the persons as
covered by Section 17(2) of the Ceiling Act and yes,
the consequence of non issuance of notice to them under
the said provision.
18. Tribunal further ought to have taken into
account the provision of Section 8 of the Act, which
provides for restriction to the transfer, however, the
transfer effected after the commencement of the Ceiling
Act, is not declared to be deemed illegal. On the
contrary, combine reading of Sections 17 and 18
indicates that in fact it was obligatory on the part of
Umesh PAGE 17 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
the Collector to take into consideration such transfer
and then to decide whether it should be ignored or
considered. This exercise has not been done by the
Collector and this fact should have been taken into
account by the Tribunal.
19. The Tribunal proceeds on the footing that the
order passed by the Authority under Section 14 of the
Act has attained finality up to Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It is true that the order passed under Section 14 has
attained finality, however, the issue as to the
requirement of notice to the Petitioners and
consequence of non issuance of the notice were not
raised and hence, not considered in the said order and
consequently not dealt with by any Court including
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Needless to say that right to
property though is not a fundamental right but is
certainly a constitutional right and in order to
deprive any person of his property, the same could be
done only in accordance with law and not otherwise.
Moreover, when a statute describes a thing to be done
in a particular manner, it should be done in that
manner only or not at all.
Umesh PAGE 18 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
20. Even in case of Suhas Pralhadrao Deshmukh
(supra), this Court was dealing with the issue as to
the execution of a registered sale deed dated
07.05.1985 i.e., much after 25.09.1971. The said Court
has recorded specific findings that the Petitioner has
only acted in the interest of original land owners. In
respectful view of this Court, the said judgment has no
application to the present case owing to the difference
in the facts of both cases. Suffice it to say that all
these issues sought to be raised before the Tribunal
since include the issues of fact, it was for the
Tribunal to record such finding on facts first and then
to accept or not the contention of the Petitioners.
This exercise cannot be undertaken in this Petition and
no findings of fact are permissible to be recorded for
the first time.
21. In so far as the Review Application is
concerned, in view of the fact that two similarly
placed Petitions were considered differently by this
Court without there being any reason or justification
therefor. Admittedly, both Petitions were moved on the
same day with similar pleadings and prayer and one
Umesh PAGE 19 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
Petition came to be admitted and another was dismissed.
There cannot be any better case to hold that there is
error apparent on the face of record and such error
deserves to be corrected. In so far as time lapsed in
between passing of the order of this Court and moving
application for Review, from the facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the
Applicant was not pursuing other remedies. In any case,
since constitutional right of the Applicant in respect
of his property is affected adversely and involved in
this proceeding, this is a fit case for allowing the
Review Application by condonation of delay caused, if
any. Consequently, Review Application stands allowed.
Writ Petition bearing No.1618/2002 stands restored.
22. Though this Court finds that grievance sought
to be made by the Intervenor to be not unreasonable
that he is being deprived of his right to get land
allotted to him long back, however, at the same time,
the denial of right of property to the Petitioners
without following due process of law cannot be ignored.
The balance of convenience, therefore, lies in favour
of Petitioners than the Intervenor.
Umesh PAGE 20 OF 21
1-WP-1415-2002.odt
23. In view of above discussion, both Petitions
stand allowed. Impugned order dated 27.12.2001 passed
in Appeal No. 43/A/97/A & Appeal No. 42/A/97/A
respectively by the Tribunal are hereby set aside. The
proceedings are relegated back to the Tribunal for
decision afresh. Since the proceedings are of year
2001, Tribunal to decide the same within a period of
three (03) months from the knowledge of this judgment.
24. Pending civil application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Umesh PAGE 21 OF 21