Appellate remand power under land ceiling law includes civil procedure incidents, while partition and pot-kharab claims lacked proof.

Under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, the appellate tribunal's power to decide appeals was held to include the incidental power to remand, because section 33(3) vested it with the powers of a civil court and assimilated Civil Procedure Code appellate procedure. The absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the State did not bar remand in an appeal filed by the surplus holder. On the facts, the alleged oral partition was found unreliable and not shown to be perverse, and the pot-kharab claim failed for want of independent proof. The ceiling challenge therefore failed on both jurisdictional and factual grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had power to remand proceedings in an appeal under section 33 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, and whether such remand could be made in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the State; (ii) whether the findings on alleged partition and pot-kharab land were liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had power to remand proceedings in an appeal under section 33 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, and whether such remand could be made in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the State.

Analysis: Section 33(3) provided that in deciding an appeal the Tribunal shall exercise all the powers which a court has and follow the procedure applicable to appeals under the Civil Procedure Code. The appellate power under section 34 was treated as declaratory, and the power of remand was held to be inherent in appellate jurisdiction and also traceable to the incorporation of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code through section 33(3). The absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the State did not bar remand in the appeal filed by the surplus holder, and the petitioners, having submitted to the remand proceedings, could not successfully object to it.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had power to remand the matter, and the remand was valid notwithstanding the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the State.

Issue (ii): whether the findings on alleged partition and pot-kharab land were liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The evidence regarding an oral partition in 1957 was found unreliable, and the revenue record supported the conclusion that the partition, if any, was reflected only later and within the prohibited period. The evidence of the doctor and the patwari did not establish a genuine partition, and the findings were not shown to be perverse. As to pot-kharab land, the remand order had excluded reliance on the Naib Tahsildar's report, and independent proof was not led; the authorities instead relied on khasra entries and other material, which did not justify interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The findings on partition and pot-kharab land were upheld and did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the ceiling determination failed on both jurisdictional and factual grounds, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate statute confers on the appellate tribunal all the powers of a court and assimilates the Civil Procedure Code appellate procedure, the power of remand is available as an incident of appellate jurisdiction unless expressly excluded.

---