Bapurao vs The State Of Maharashtra
2010 Latest Caselaw 286 Bom

                                                                 wp820.92
                                  1




                                                                 
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                         
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                  WRIT PETITION NO.820 OF 1992.




                                        
     Bapurao s/o Umaji Bapmare,
     age major, occu. Agril.,
     r/o Khalwat, Nimgaon, Tq.Majalgaon,
     District Beed.                    .. PETITIONER.




                            
               VERSUS
     1. The State of Maharashtra.
              
     2. Surplus Land Determination
     Tribunal, Majalgaon,
     Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
             
     3. The Additional Commissioner,
     Division, Aurangabad.

     4. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
      

     Aurangabad.                       .. RESPONDENTS.
   



                            ...
     Shri V.D. Salunke, Adv. for Petitioner (absent).
     Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents.
                            ...





                                      CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J.

14th DECEMBER, 2010.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. This petition is filed challenging the

proceedings in case No.1978/ICH/R/2295, the

judgment and order dated 26.9.1991 passed by

the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for

short, referred to as the S.L.D.T.) in Case

wp820.92

No.75/ICH/887 and also the judgment and order

of M.R.T., Aurangabad dated 10.2.1992 in case

No.74/A/91/B, to the extent of remand order.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he

had filed returns under Section 12 of the

Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on

Holdings) Act, 1960 (for short, referred to as

the said Act) on 26.11.1975. He has shown his

total holding to the extent of 92 acres and 14

gunthas. The said holding was shown including

the survey number held by his major son

Babasaheb and the other lands which were in

the names of other members of the family. The

S.L.D.T., Majalgaon instituted enquiry

proceedings against the petitioner in the

year, 1975 in file No.1975/ICH/887 and after

making full-fledged enquiry, the S.L.D.T.,

came to the conclusion that after deducting

Pot-Kharab area, the holding of the petitioner

remains 91 acres and 34 gunthas. The S.L.D.T.

excluded the share of the major son to the

wp820.92

extent of 18 acres and 14 gunthas and came to

the conclusion that the net holding of the

petitioner remains to the extent of 73 acres

and 20 gunthas. The S.L.D.T., after allowing

the land holder to retain 54 acres of land,

declared the petitioner surplus holder to the

extent of 19 acres and 20 gunthas. The

S.L.D.T., delimited 19 acres and 20 gunthas of

land from the holding of the petitioner and

distributed it to the landless persons as per

section 27 of the said Act.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that

the Additional Commissioner, Aurangbaad by

exercising powers under Section 45(2) of the

said Act, reopened the suo motu enquiry

proceedings by issuing notice dated 5th

September, 1986 i.e. after 10 years of the

judgment of the S.L.D.T. It is further case

of the petitioner that though the judgment of

the Commissioner reveals that the memorandum

of the revision was opened on 30.11.1978 but,

wp820.92

the notice of the revision was sent on

5.9.1986 and served on the petitioner first

time in the year, 1986 i.e. after 10 years of

the judgment of the S.L.D.T. The further

contention of the petitioner is that not ony

that the Additional Commissioner must initiate

the proceedings within three years from the

date of

order of S.L.D.T., but, he should

apply his mind within three years and serve

the notice to the landholder within three

years from the decision of the S.L.D.T. The

Additional Commissioner had not called the

record and not served notice to the petitioner

within three years. It is further case of the

petitioner that the provisions of the said Act

contemplates that the Additional Commissioner

himself should apply his mind. However, in the

present case, the Deputy collector scrutinized

the papers and at his instance, the enquiry

was reopened after three years. It is the

case of the petitioner that the suo motu

enquiry was initiated by the Additional

wp820.92

Commissioner in the year, 1986 and the matter

was decided on 6th August, 1990. The

Additional Commissioner partly set aside the

order passed by the S.L.D.T., and remanded the

matter to the S.L.D.T. for fresh decision. It

is specific contention of the petitioner that

the order passed by the Additional

Commissioner is without jurisdiction and

powers and, hence, it is illegal.

4. Upon perusal of the pleadings in the

petition and grounds taken therein, the

precise contention of the petitioner is that

it was not open for the Additional

Commissioner to initiate suo motu enquiry

after lapse of 10 years from the decision of

the S.L.D.T., which was on 20th March, 1976.

The further contention of the petitioner

appears to be that such initiation of suo motu

proceedings contemplates application of mind

by the Additional Commissioner himself.

However, the Deputy Collector has scrutinized

wp820.92

the papers and on the recommendation of Deputy

Collector, the suo motu proceedings were

initiated by the Additional Commissioner.

5. With the assistance of the learned A.G.P.

appearing for the respondents, I have perused

the pleadings and grounds taken in the

petition.

The points raised in this petition

are no more res integra and are covered by the

Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case

of Manohar Ramchandra vs. State of Maharashtra

(1989 Mh.L.J. 1011). The Full Bench of this

Court, in the said pronouncement, held that

the powers under Section 45(2) of the said

Act cannot be exercised beyond the period of

three years from the date of declaration.

6. That apart, it appears from the pleadings,

which remained un-controverted since no reply

is filed, that the papers were scrutinized by

the Deputy Collector and on the recommendation

of the Deputy Collector, the suo motu

wp820.92

proceedings were initiated by the Additional

Commissioner. It is an admitted position that

the order of the S.L.D.T. attained finality in

the year, 1976 and notice was issued in the

year, 1986. Therefore, issuance of notice to

the petitioner after lapse of ten years

period, without application of mind by the

Additional Commissioner, was beyond the scope

of Section 45(2) of the said Act. It is not

necessary to burden this judgment by citing

various pronouncements since the point raised

in this petition is answered by this Court in

case of Manohar Ramchandra (supra).

7. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench

of this Court in the case of Manohar

Ramchandra (supra), and in view of the

admitted position that the respondent No.3

herein initiated the suo motu proceedings

after lapse of 10 years from the date of order

of S.L.D.T., in my opinion, the said

proceedings are beyond period of limitation.

wp820.92

As stated herein above, the point raised in

this petition is already concluded by the Full

Bench of this Court. Taking the view that the

powers under Section 45(2) of the said Act

cannot be exercised beyond the period of three

years from the date of declaration, this

petition deserves to be allowed.

8. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in

terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D). The

proceedings in case No.1978/ICH/R/2295, the

judgment and order dated 26.9.1991 passed by

the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal in

Case No.75/ICH/887 and also the judgment and

order of M.R.T., Aurangabad dated 10.2.1992 in

case No.74/A/91/B, are quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

[ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE.

PLK/*