Bombay High Court
Manoj Kantilal Agarwal And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 19 March, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
13.wp.918.21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 918 OF 2021
Manoj Kantilal Agarwal & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
.........
Mr. Ajit Dilip Hon for the Petitioners.
Mr. K.S. Thorat, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Mohan C. Kamble i/b Abhijeet Kulkarni for Respondent No.3.
.........
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 19th MARCH, 2021.
P.C. :-
1 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioners are challenging notice dated 17.04.2015 issued under
Section 17(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on
Holdings) Act, 1961 and in alternative seeks direction to the Respondent-
State to conclude the enquiry in respect of the Petitioners land.
Waghmare 1 / 8
13.wp.918.21.doc
3 The learned Counsel Mr. Mohan C. Kamble appearing on
behalf of Respondent No.3 submits that Advocate on record is not
available today, hence, he required some time. The learned Counsel for
the Petitioners submits that this Court by order dated 08.10.2020 directed
the learned A.G.P. to take instructions and communicate the response of
State in the present matter but till today neither the State file the reply
and/or made any statement before this Court in respect of enquiry to be
conducted.
4 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that this
Court by order dated 22.12.2006 (Coram : B.H. Marlapalle & J.H. Bhatia,
JJ.) in Writ Petition No.3238 of 1989 with other connected matters,
directed the State to hold enquiry in respect of the transactions of sale
and purchase of the land. He relies on para 19 of the said order which
reads thus :
"19. As far as Writ Petition No.3238 of 1989 is
concerned, the petitioners who are the original land
holders only seek certain directions for appropriate
enquiry and implementation of the orders passed by the
Government for fresh enquiry. It appears that initially a
Sub Divisional Officer, Pandharpur was designated as a
Waghmare 2 / 8
13.wp.918.21.doc
Enquiry Officer for the purpose of Section 14 of the
Ceiling Act. According to the petitioners, the Sub
Divisional Officer, Pandharpur was over burdened with
his other duties and, therefore, it was not possible for
him to complete the enquiry within a reasonable time.
Further it was pointed out that the records which were
seized by the A.C.B. was not being made available to the
Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the petitioners sought a
direction that an officer of the rank of Collector who
should be specially designated and appointed as an
Enquiry Officer and he should complete the enquiry
within six months. They further sought a direction for
making complete record available to the Enquiry Officer.
As per the affidavit filed by Shri Shankar Narayan, the
Assistant Collector, Pandharpur, by an order dated
27-9-1991, the Government had modified original orders
dated 7-8-1989 and 31-10-1989 and in supersession of
those orders, the Government has designated the
Assistant Commissioner of Land Records, Pune as
Enquiry Officer. It is also pointed out that now the
Assistant Commissioner is designated as a Deputy
Commissioner of Pune Division. In view of this, we are
satisfied that the Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division is
sufficiently senior and competent officer to hold such an
enquiry. Taking into consideration the huge fraud,
forgeries and the large number of people involved in the
matter, the Enquiry Officer certainly needs some time. In
Waghmare 3 / 8
13.wp.918.21.doc
our opinion, the said Enquiry Officer should not be
entrusted with any other official duty so that he may
fully concentrate on these enquiries and we may expect
that he will complete the same within six months from
the date of this order. As far as records are concerned, it
is pointed out that records of Special Case Nos.2,5,6 and
7 of 1975 were directed to remain in custody of Special
Judge, Solapur as per the order dated 4th June, 1990 in
Criminal Application No.814 of 1990, passed by this
Court. Those records may be made available to the
Enquiry Officer. The learned Assistant Government
Pleader has also brought to our notice that records of
some of the matters as required are available with the
court and some records could not be traced out but as
soon as they were found, they will be produced before
the Enquiry Officer. In view of this, Writ Petition
No.3238 of 1989 may be disposed off with certain
directions."
5 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that though
this Court by order dated 22.12.2006 directed the Respondents to
complete the enquiry within six months, they failed and neglected to do
so. He submits that thereafter in Letters Patent Appeal No.134 of 2010
with Letters Patent Appeal Stamp No.15273 of 2010, this Court (Coram :
Mohit S. Shah, CJ & S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) by order dated 28.07.2010
Waghmare 4 / 8
13.wp.918.21.doc
again directed the State to complete the enquiry immediately. In support
of this contention, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners relies on para
18 of the said order which reads thus :
"18. We, therefore, see no merit in any of the
contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. Dealing
with the judgments, we, however, make it clear that the
interim stay granted by the learned Single Judge is only
in respect of transfer of lands and on proper reading, the
reasoning of the order of the learned Single Judge makes
it clear that the learned Single Judge did not intend to
grant any stay against the inquiry regarding correction of
records which is already ordered to be held by this Court
as per the judgment dated 22nd December, 2006 and also
by the order of Minister (Revenue), State of
Maharashtra, dated 25th August, 2009. The inquiry
under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the
Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings )
Act, 1961 shall, therefore, proceed immediately as
directed by the judgment dated 22nd December, 2006 of
the Division Bench of this Court."
6 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that
thereafter the matter was carried to the Apex Court. The Apex Court in
Waghmare 5 / 8
13.wp.918.21.doc
Civil Appeal No.1751 of 2015 with connected other matters, passed order
on 11.02.2015. Apex Court also directed completion of the enquiry as
early as possible in the interest of public at large. The relevant para of the
said order of Apex Court is para 23 which reads thus :
"23. It is noticed by this Court that right from the year
1989, the orders passed by the State Government have
been successfully stalled by the appellants to conduct the
administrative enquiry into the matter for the last
quarter century, the most valuable period is lost in the
process of untenable litigation made by the appellants.
Therefore, we direct the State Government and the
Enquiry Officer appointed for the purpose or if the said
Officer has already retired, then the Deputy
Commissioner of the Pune Division who is in office at
present is required to expedite the administrative
enquiry within six months as directed by the High Court
in its operative portion of the order or any officer can be
appointed by the State Government in his place within
two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and
submit compliance report to this Court for its perusal
and further direct the State Government to proceed with
the matter in accordance with law after affording
opportunity to all the parties.
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment
and order of the Division Bench in affirming the orders
Waghmare 6 / 8
13.wp.918.21.doc
of the State Government is not required to be interfered
with for one more reason, namely, the High Court, after
adverting to certain findings recorded in the criminal
cases with regard to the land ceiling and on the alleged
fraud against the declarants in getting the orders passed
under Section 21 of the Act, has recorded the findings
and reasons holding that the orders of the State
Government do not warrant interference as the same are
in the interest of public at large.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the appeals are
dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the
appellants in each of these appeals out of which 50% to
be given to the State Government of Maharashtra, and
the remaining 50% to be given to the contesting private
respondents at whose instance the orders were passed by
the State Government. The parties are directed to
maintain status quo regarding the nature of land and not
to create any encumbrance upon the land involved in
these proceedings till the enquiry is over."
7 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that though
the Apex Court by their order dated 11.02.2015 directed the State to
complete the enquiry immediately, they failed and neglected to do so.
Hence, the Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. He submits that the
State may be directed to file an affidavit explaining what step they have
Waghmare 7 / 8
13.wp.918.21.doc
taken on the basis of the orders passed by this Court and as well as Apex
Court to hold the enquiry in respect of issue involved in the present
matter.
8 The learned A.G.P. Mr. K.S. Thorat appearing on behalf of
Respondent-State submits that though this Court by order dated
08.10.2020 granted some time, he requires further time to take
instructions and file affidavit to that effect.
9 Hence, the following order is passed
i) Respondent-State to file their affidavit-in-reply on or
before 31.03.2021 explaining what step they have taken on
to complete the enquiry on the basis of the orders passed by
this Court as well as Apex Court.
ii) Matter to appear on board on 07.04.2021.
Digitally
signed by
Waishali S.
Waishali Waghmare
S.
Waghmare Date:
2021.03.23
03:57:46
+0530
( R.I. CHAGLA, J. ) ( K.K. TATED, J. )
Waghmare 8 / 8
