Summary
Resolving a difference of opinion, the Supreme Court held that Maharashtra’s ceiling authorities lacked jurisdiction to declare a registered partition predating 26 September 1970 sham. The statutory fiction allowed specified later transactions to be ignored for ceiling calculations; it did not authorise a civil trial invalidating an earlier deed. The affected daughters had also not been joined to the State’s cross-objections. The Sub-Divisional Officer’s original determination was restored.
Issues
- Whether ceiling authorities could invalidate a registered partition executed and registered before the statutory cut-off.
- Whether the State’s cross-objections and non-joinder of the affected daughters supported the appellate determination.
Provisions considered
- Sections 10, 11, 14 and 18, Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961Confined the statutory enquiry and deeming provisions to their defined ceiling-calculation functions, without power to invalidate the pre-cut-off partition as sham. (¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 28, 31)
- Sections 21, 33 and 45, Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961Examined the declaration, appeal and cross-objection scheme and the separate revisional power. (¶¶ 6, 7, 20, 21)
Held
- The deeming provision permits relevant transfers or partitions to be ignored for ceiling purposes; it does not declare them void. Extending the enquiry to invalidate a registered partition before 26 September 1970 would expand the limited fiction and deprive the cut-off of effect. (¶¶ 8, 16, 18, 19, 28, 30, 31)
- The Collector’s powers concerning returns and calculation of holdings do not authorise a trial declaring the earlier partition sham. Such invalidation lies within civil-court jurisdiction; the statutory bar cannot supply jurisdiction absent from the ceiling authorities. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 28, 31)
- On these facts, the State’s cross-objection fell outside Section 33(1A); a properly available Section 45 revision was a separate matter. Independently, failure to join the two elder daughters whose allotted land was adversely affected denied them the required opportunity and was fatal to the appellate order. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- Given the jurisdictional conclusion, it was unnecessary to determine the differing views on Hindu-law issues concerning provision for unmarried daughters. (¶ 31)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside and Sub-Divisional Officer’s order of 7 May 1984 restored.