SHARAD MANOHAR, J. - (1.)The above petitions arise out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, which is referred to hereinafter as "the Act". A few facts may be set out briefly which give rise to the questions which have been raised on behalf of the petitioners in both these petitions.
(2.)The lands which are the subject-matter of these proceedings (hereinafter referred to as "the lands") belonged originally to one Parashram. It is not clear whether he was the last surviving coparcener or whether they were self-acquired lands by him, but for the purpose of the questions arising in these petitions that question has not relevance. Said Parashram died on 23-1-1957 leaving behind as his sole heir his widow Saraswatibai. Saraswatibai adopted Dattatraya (who is petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 114 of 1975) on 6-2-1957. It is alleged that the adoption was accompained by some kind of document. It was not a registered document. On 11-9-1958, allegedly, there was some kind of transaction between Saraswatibai on the one hand and Dattatraya on the other, by virtue of which the lands owned by Saraswatibai were divided between the adoptive mother and the adoptive son. Both the petitioners describe this transaction as a partition. It is admitted that no partition deed as such, was executed but it is contended that some partition Yadi was made and that as per the said Yadi, out of the total area of 72 acres 6 gunthas held by Saraswatibai, land admeasuring 47 acres 27 gunthas was given to the adoptive son Dattatraya. As is well known, the Act came into force with effect from 25-1-1962 and under he Act, the Appointed Date is 4-8-1959. On 14-1-1960, the petitioners claim, a Wardi was given by or on their behalf to the Talathi informing him about the transaction of partition dated 11-9-1958. We are advisedly using the words "transaction of partition" be caused as will be presently pointed out, we have come to the conclusion that the transaction cannot be in reality described as a partition at all. It is contended that as per the Wardi dated 14-1-1960 mutations were effected in the revenue records as per the partition Yadi. There is not a word brought on record either before us or before any of the lower authorities that the partition Yadi which is sought to be produced before us today was produced before the Talathi at that time.
(3.)This is genesis against which the questions falling for consideration in these petitions are to be decided.