Arjuna and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the private -\ respondent are within the ceiling limit and, therefore, allotment of the surplus land to the respondents is illegal. In ground No. 5 of the special leave petition it was specifically pleaded that the respondents are declared to be a surplus holder and the excess land was assigned to the appellants. H 1105 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R. A By order dated March 22, 1995, we had directed both the parties to produce the return filed by the respondents. The appellants were directed '(" to get the certified copy of the said return as well as the copy of the return filed by the respondents. It is stated by Dr. N.N. Ghatate, learned senior counsel for the B respondents, that through Mr. S.V. Deshpande, the learned instructing counsel, had written letters to the party he has not received any response. Mr. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, stated that the.y could not procure the certified copy. In that view of the matter, ground No.5 has remained undisputed. C The appeal is, accordingly allowed on that terms and the order of the High Court is set aside. In case the respondents were declared to be within the ceiling limit, liberty is given to them to file a review petition within a period of two months from to day. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed. I