https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193605 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. en-us Mon, 19 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Aug 2017 10:16:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193605 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193605