1    

‘NON-REPORTABLE’  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2038-2039/2009      

Vishwasrao Satwarao Naik & Ors.         …. Appellant(s)    

Versus    

State of Maharashtra         … Respondent(s)      

J U D G M E N T    Deepak Gupta J.    

1. The Maharashtra Agriculture Land (Ceiling on Holdings)  

Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Ceiling Act’) was enforced with effect  

from 04.08.1959 in the area in question.  

2. Satwarao, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, held  

huge tracts of land but did not file return under the Ceiling  

Act.  A notice was issued to him and in response to the notice,  

he claimed that he only held agricultural land measuring 127

2    

acres and 8 guntas in various villages.  On inquiry, the  

authorities prima facie found that on 04.08.1959, Satwarao  

held 468.08 acres of land and notice was again sent to him.   

He again filed reply and set up some sales, gifts and transfers  

which, according to him, took place prior to the enforcement  

of the Ceiling Act.  For the purposes of deciding this case, it is  

not necessary to go into all the details.  It would be sufficient  

to state that Satwarao was found to hold 333.14 acres of  

land.  The admitted case of the parties is that keeping in view  

the quality of land and the area in which it is situate, the Sub  

Divisional Officer (SDO) held that Satwarao was entitled to  

retain 114 acres of land for his family.  44.51 acres of land  

was deducted as ‘pot kharab’ land i.e. land which is totally  

unfit for cultivation and thus, excluded from the ceiling limit.    

3.  Aggrieved by the order of the SDO, Satwarao filed an  

appeal in the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (for  

short ‘the Tribunal’).  The Tribunal found that the extent of  

uncultivable land was 106.24 acres and this was to be  

deducted.  This deduction was done on the basis of some

3    

survey report carried out by the revenue authorities.  The  

appellants/their predecessor-in-interest carried the matter to  

the High Court and finally to this Court claiming that the  

extent of cultivable land is more than 106.24 acres but this  

was not accepted.  As far as the State is concerned, it never  

challenged the order of the Tribunal or of the High Court.  

4. The Act was amended later and the ceiling limit was  

changed to 54 acres from 114 acres.  Therefore, a fresh return  

had to be filed.  Satwarao had bequeathed his properties in  

favour of his daughter-in-law viz., Rajni Bai.  Return on her  

behalf was filed by her husband Vishwasrao.  In this return, it  

was claimed that the appellant is holding 119.03 acres of land  

including some lands which were individually owned by Rajni  

Bai and the lands bequeathed to her by her father-in-law.  It  

would be pertinent to mention that in the return filed by  

Vishwasrao on behalf of his wife, the extent of pot kharab  

land was only shown to be 11.10 acres.  On inquiry, it was  

found that the actual extent of land held by the family of the  

assessee was 249.19 acres.  The Surplus Land Determination

4    

and Distribution Officer (for short ‘the SLDO’) found that the  

total extent of ‘pot kharab’ land was 28.20 acres.  The family  

was entitled to 54 acres as the ceiling limit and, therefore,  

166.39 acres was declared to be excess land to be handed  

over to the State.  

5.    Appeal was filed by Vishwasrao before the Tribunal  

and the main ground urged was that when in the earlier  

proceedings 106.24 land was held out to be pot kharab, how  

could the pot kharab land be held to be less than that.  The  

appeal with regard to this aspect was dismissed.  Thereafter,  

the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court which has  

also been dismissed leading to the filing of the present cases.   

6.  The main ground urged is that since in the earlier  

proceedings held under the Act, the extent of pot kharab land  

was found to be 106.24 acres, then in the second ceiling  

proceedings the extent of pot kharab land could not come  

down to 28.20 acres.  In this behalf, it is urged that the  

revenue authorities have relied upon the revenue entries with  

regard to the classification of the land and have not actually

5    

visited the land to determine which land is cultivable and  

which land is not cultivable.  In ceiling proceedings, it is the  

duty of the owner of the land to show which portion of his  

land is exempt from ceiling proceedings.  In this case, in the  

return filed on behalf of the owner it was mentioned that only  

11.10 acres of land is pot kharab.  However, on the basis of  

the revenue record, the officer assessed the pot kharab land  

as 28.20 acres.  The appellant led no evidence and has not  

even placed on record the revenue records prior to the earlier  

ceiling proceedings or the revenue record thereafter, to  

support his claim that even earlier the land which was  

declared to be pot kharab, was actually not classified as such  

in the revenue record.  Presumption of truth is attached to  

the revenue record.  No doubt, this is a rebuttable  

presumption, but it is for the party who alleges that the  

entries in the revenue record are wrong to lead evidences to  

rebut this presumption.  This, the appellants have miserably  

failed to do.  The appellants have also failed to lead any  

evidence to show that the revenue entries are wrong.   

6    

7. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeals.   

The same are dismissed.  Pending application(s), if any,  

stand(s) disposed of.  

………………………..J.  (Madan B. Lokur)  

…………………………J.  (Deepak Gupta)  

New Delhi  April  25, 2018