S.S. Shinde, J.@mdashThis writ petition takes exception to the notice issued by the by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad bearing No. 1979/ICHR276 dated 14071992.
2. The Petitioner herein is a resident of Renakhali, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani is the original land holder in the proceedings under the subject matter. It is the case of the Petitioner that he had filed return u/s 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (For short, "said Act"). The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (For short, "S.L.D.T.") in its judgment and order dated 31031976 declared the Petitioner surplus holder to the extent of 22 Hectors 45 Acres (56 Acres 5 gunthas). Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appeal was preferred before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the S.L.D.T. by order dated 07111977 in File No. 207/A77Parbhani. After remand, the S.L.D.T. again reexamined the case and after inquiry, declared the Petitioner surplus to the extent of 9 Acres and 8 gunthas from S. No. 53/2 and 52 (6 Acres 27 Gunthas and 2 Acres 21 gunthas, in all total 9 Acres 8 gunthas) respectively of village situated at Renakhali, Taluka Pathri District Parbhani. It is further case of the Petitioner that the said land to the extent of 9 Acres and 8 Gunthas is in possession of the person to whom, it was allotted by the competent authority.
3. It is further case of the Petitioner that, the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, by exercising power u/s 45(2) of the said Act, reopened the inquiry i.e. suo moto inquiry in the year 1992. Hence this petition is filed challenging the re opening of the inquiry and issuance of notice by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 2 Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad has no jurisdiction or power to start or reopen suo moto inquiry u/s 45(2) of the said Act after period of three years from the date of order passed by the S.L.D.T. but in the instant case, the Additional Commissioner has not called record of the S.L.D.T. within period of three years. He has not scrutinised the record nor he has issued and got served notice on the Petitioner within period of three years. According to Counsel for the Petitioner, notice issued by the Additional Commissioner for suo moto inquiry is after 14 years from the date of decision of the S.L.D.T. Pathri and therefore, notice issued to the Petitioner for suo moto inquiry by the Additional Commissioner deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. submitted that the authority has acted within its power and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the suo moto proceedings initiated by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
6. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the entire documents placed on record and also record made available and I am of the opinion that the notice issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad for suo motor inquiry was after 14 years from the date of the decision of S.L.D.T. and said notice was beyond statutory period and therefore, same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Upon perusal of the entire documents placed on record, I find that the Additional Commissioner has not called for record and proceedings and also documents within period of three years and also has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and issued notice in the year 1992. Therefore, impugned notice cannot be sustained.
8. This Court had occasion to interpret provisions of Section 45(2) of the said Act, in the following decisions:
In the case of Manohar Ramchandra Manapure and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 1989 Mh.L.J.1011 the Full Bench of this Court held that the proviso to Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agriculture Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, restricts the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 45(2) to those cases where the record is called for within the period of 3 years from the date of declaration u/s 21. The starting point of limitation as prescribed in the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 45 is the declaration or part thereof u/s 21 of the Act. Calling of the record cannot be equated with the mechanical, clerical or ministerial act of calling for the record for all the proceedings irrespective of the fact whether they were required or not for the purpose specified in the section. It is further held that it is after applying his mind that the revisional authority will have to call for the record of the enquiry or proceedings after conscious application of mind to the facts and circumstances of each case. Where admittedly the necessary application of mind on the part of the Commissioner was much beyond the period of 3 years of the order impugned, it will have to be held that the records were not called within the period of 3 years. In such a case the Commissioner will have no power to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.
Yet in another decision in the case of Bansilal Ramgopal Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra and Other 2001 (1) Mh.L.J.68 this Court held that suo motu proceedings for revision having been initiated almost after 9 years from the date of decision of S.L.D.T., could not be permitted in law. Suo motu proceedings in question having been initiated after unreasonable period were without authority of law and void ab initio in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
Yet in another reported case of Lotan Fakira Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2002 (2) Mh.L.J. 255 this Court in the facts of the case held notice u/s 45(2) of the Act for suomotu revision was issued on 25.03.1982 and not within the period of three years from the date of order of the S.L.D.T. dated 03.07.1978 and therefore the exercise of powers under the said provisions was beyond the period of limitation and therefore was without jurisdiction.
Yet in another case of
(2) of Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 lays down two conditions which are required to be satisfied before the State Government or its delegate could invoke the revisional powers. The said two conditions are: (a) that, appeal has not been
filed against the order/declaration made by S.L.D.T. within the prescribed period, and (b) that, a period of 3 years has not elapsed from the date of the order or declaration made by S.L.D.T. In the facts of that case the Court held that the decision to initiate the proceedings was taken within three years time. However, same was without application of mind and hence held to be bad in law. It is further held that the actual initiation of proceedings was after a lapse of about 8 to 10 years from the date of decision to initiate the proceedings. This delay was totally unexplained. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, the Court held that where the notice came to be issued to the Petitioner by the Additional Commissioner, after lapse of period of 8-10 years, after passing orders by S.L.D.T., holding that the Petitioners did not hold land in excess of ceiling limit are bad in law.
Yet in another case of Shalikram Dagduba Solunke etc. v. State of Maharashtra and Another 2004 (1) Mah.L.R. 310 this Court held that exercise of revisional powers by Additional Commissioner after 10 to 15 years from the date of order of S.L.D.T., is beyond the statutory period and also passed in mechanical manner and same is liable to be set aside.
Yet in another judgment in
9. Therefore, in the light of discussion hereinabove and authoritative pronouncement cited supra, notice issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad bearing No. 1979/ICHR276 dated 14071992 is quashed and set aside.
10. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of.
11. Rule made absolute as indicated above.
