wp488.92 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.488 OF 1992. Mallappa Chanbasappa Warad, age 60 years, occu. Agril., r/o Ayapanwadi, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad, through the General Power of Attorney, Mrs. Suchetadevi w/o Mallappa Warad. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 2. The State of Maharashtra. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri S.C. Bora, Advocate 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.78/ICH/R/1747 initiated by the respondent No.1 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in the case of the petitioner for enquiry under Section 45(2) of wp488.92 2 the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act (for short, referred to as the said Act). 2. The petitioner herein was declared non surplus holder by order dated 11.11.1976 by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (for short, referred to as the S.L.D.T.). It is the case of the petitioner that no appeal or revision or any other proceeding was filed by by the State of Maharashtra challenging the order of the S.L.D.T., within the period of limitation. It is the case of the petitioner that he received notice in the month of December, 1991 whereby the petitioner was informed to remain present in the office of the Collector, Osmanabad on 10th January, 1992 for hearing and the subject mentioned in the notice was the enquiry under Section 45(2) of the said Act. It is the case of the petitioner that in view wp488.92 3 of the proviso to Section 45(2) of the said Act, the powers under Section 45(2) of the said Act must be exercised within a period of three years from the date of declaration under Section 12(2) of the said Act. Admittedly, no such powers were exercised by the revisional authority i.e. the State of Maharashtra or the Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad within the period of limitation. The contention of the petitioner is that the order passed by the S.L.D.T., dated 11.11.1976 is sought to be revised after the period of 15 years and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 Divisional Commissioner are null, void and without jurisdiction. 3. When the matter is called out for final hearing, none appears for the petitioner. With the assistance of the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents, I have perused the pleadings and grounds taken in the petition. wp488.92 4 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. 4. 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.1 herein initiated the suo motu proceedings in the month of December, 1991, after lapse of 15 years from the date of order of S.L.D.T., in my opinion, the said proceedings are beyond period of limitation. 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 wp488.92 5 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. 5. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C). The proceedings in case No.78/ICH/R/1747 initiated by the respondent No.1 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in the case of the petitioner for enquiry under Section 45(2) of the said Act are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in the above terms. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*