TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India can set aside the findings of facts arrived at by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Jalna pursuant to an order of remand made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, even though the Respondent No. 1 submitted to the order of remand without questioning its propriety and validity. 2. The Respondent No. 1 Harishchandra was the owner of survey Nos. 143, 144 and half portion of 161 situated at village Reogaon Taluka, District Jalna, Maharashtra. He was in statutory possession of the same under the provisions of Section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenants and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The total land in his possession on the appointed day i.e. on 26th January 1962 when the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : The Revenue Tribunal after hearing both the parties accepted the contention of the State and remitted the case back on remand to the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Jalna for fresh enquiry and decision after setting aside the judgment and order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. The Respondent No. 1, however, did not take any objection against the order of remand made by the Tribunal and on the other hand submitted to it. 4. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal pursuant to the order of remand heard both the parties and revised its earlier findings by including survey No. 143 in the holding of Respondent No. 1. The Tribunal also held that the Respondent No. 1 has in his possession surplus land to the extent of 30 acres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction to remand the matter on the issue, which was not the subject-matter before the appellate authority. It was held that the order of remand was erroneous and it required to be rectified by the Court. The exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution was held to be justified on the ground of advancement of justice. 7. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the judgment and order made by the High Court, Bombay cannot be sustained for the reasons stated herein below :- The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal undoubtedly held that the decision rendered by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal by its order dated March 26, 197G was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
