1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5291 OF 2005 Ms. Rupabai Pruthviraj Lalwani & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. The Addl. Collector & Competent Authority, Nasik Urban Agglomeration & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. R. D. Soni i/b. Ram & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. V. P. Malvankar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Mr. P. N. Joshi for Respondent No.3. ..... CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, J. AND DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. January 27, 2006. P.C. (Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.): Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing. 2. According to the Petitioners, Govardhandas Laxmichand Shamsukha, who was the father of the First, Second and Third Petitioners and the grandfather of Petitioner Nos.4 to 13 purchased land bearing Survey No. 30/3B-30/3/7 admeasuring 1 Hectare 48 Ares situated at Makhamalbad, Nasik by a registered 2 sale deed dated 13th July 1967. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, came into operation with effect from 17th February 1976. Govardhandas who was alive on the aforesaid date, filed returns under Section 6(1) declaring his holding and including therein the aforesaid property. On 26th February 1983, a draft statement was prepared reflecting the name of Govardhandas as the individual owner of the property. Initially, it would appear that 55,505 sq.mtrs. of land came to be regarded as excess holding and 2000 sq.mtrs. was stated to be retainable. Govardhandas expired on 24th August 1982. On 31st March 1987, the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Nasik finalised the statement under Section 8(4). In so far as is material, the order contained the following observations : “The wife of the holder has not produced documentary evidence to show that the deceased holder Govardhandas Lakhichand has purchased the properties under enquiry with the aid of income derived from the ancestral properties. even though, she did not produce documentary evidence to show that the deceased Govardhandas was holding ancestral properties. In fact, the deceased holder has mentioned in the statement 3 filed by him under section 6(1) that the properties under inquiry are purchased by him. It is thus clear that the properties under inquiry are self acquired properties of the deceased holder and as the deceased holder was alive on 17.2.1976, her daughters are not entitled to have separate share in the said properties.” No appeal was filed against this order under Section 33 of the Act. Govardhandas was survived inter alia by his widow Sundarabai. Sundarabai expired on 25th February 1993. Her two daughters applied on 24th August 1993 to question the computation of the excess holding and the finalisation of the statement under Section 8(4). On 5th March 1994, the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority considered these objections. The excess holding was computed at 968.73 sq.mtrs. Subsequently, by corrigenda dated 4th July 1994 and 29th August 1994, the excess holding was re- computed and, as a result of the last of those orders, came to be determined 17,075 sq.mtrs. On 7th December 2000, a notification came to be issued under Section 10(3) declaring land admeasuring 17,075 sq.mtrs. as having vested in the Government and a notice of possession was issued under Section 10(5) on 1st 4 January 2001. 3. On 26th February 2004, Govardhandas's daughters filed a revision under Section 34 before the Government of Maharashtra through a developer acting as the holder of a General Power of Attorney and that revision was entertained. A report was submitted by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority to the Urban Development Department and on 11th March 2004. An order came to be passed thereon by the Urban Development Department. The order records that there were two objections of the land holders, namely, (i) That the shares of the major daughters of the original holder in an ancestral property must be determined separately as of the date of the enforcement of the Act; and (ii) The area which on the date of the enforcement of the Act has been duly constructed upon was liable to be excluded. Thereafter, a fresh order was issued by the First Respondent on 30th April 2004 under Section 8(4) revising the excess holding of late Govardhandas by giving shares to all the four major daughters and to the heirs of one of his late daughters. 4. The land has been reserved in the Development Plan for 5 a wholesale market of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nasik. The State Government decided sou motu to take steps to rectify its order dated 30th April 2004 and an order was passed on 18th July 2005 whereby the revised statement dated 30th April 2004 under Section 8(4) was quashed and set aside in respect of the holding of Govardhandas and a direction came to be issued to the effect that possession should be given to the APMC Nasik in accordance with Government's letter dated 25th August 2005. That had led to the institution of these proceedings. 5. On behalf of the Petitioners it has been fairly stated by Counsel that after the notification that was issued under Section 10(3) on 7th December 2000, it was only on 26th February 2004 that a revision was sought to be filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Section 34 before the State Government. However, Counsel submitted that this revision was filed in view of a policy circular of the State Government dated 10th May 1999 under which Government decided to allow separate shares to major sons and daughters in ancestral property and conferred necessary powers upon the Collectors and Competent Authorities to issue corrigenda for the said purpose. On behalf of the Petitioners it was 6 submitted that (i) It was not necessary for the Competent Authority to hear the APMC Nasik (the Third Respondent) when it took a decision on 30th April 2004 to recompute the excess holding since the question of allotment to the Third Respondent would arise if there were any excess holding; (ii) The reasoning of the Government in the impugned order to the effect that a revised order under Section 8(4) could not be issued upon the notification under Sections 10(3) and 10(5) is erroneous since the policy circular of the Government directs that even a sanctioned scheme under Sections 20 and 21 has to be revised on the basis of the shares of the major daughters on the appointed day; (iii) The impugned order is contrary to the policy circulars of the Government dated 23rd July 1997 and 10th May 1999 and the issuance of a notification under Section 10(3) and Section 10(5) would not bar the implementation of the policy circulars. 6. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the Third Respondent that in view of the decisions of Division Benches of this Court in The Automotive Research Association of India Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (1) Bom. C.R. 278 and Vandana Mohan Gunjal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003(3) Bom. C.R. 853, 7 it is a settled position in law that the exercise of the power of revision must be within a reasonable period even though no specific time period has been prescribed by Section 34. This Court, it was submitted, has laid down that a period of three years is to be regarded as a reasonable period from the date of the order that is sought to be revised under Section 34. In the present case, the finalisation of the Draft statement under Section 8(4) and the ruling that the property was a self acquired property of Govardhandas was never challenged in appeal under Section 33 Even after the death of Sundarabai in 1993, her daughters had unsuccessfully applied on 24th August 1993 to challenge the statement. Hence, it was submitted that the revision which was filed by the Petitioners was hopelessly belated. Moreover, it was submitted that the Third Respondent to whom a decision had been taken to allot the land was required to be heard before the orders dated 11th March 2004 and 30th April 2004 came to be passed. Finally, it has been submitted that there was no basis for the finding that the property was the ancestral property of Govardhandas. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the order of the Government dated 18th July 2005 was correct and warranted no interference. 8 7. The impugned order of the State Government dated 18th July 2005 adverts to the policy decision of the State Government to allow shares to major daughters of a land holder in ancestral property as on the date of the enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The order then proceeds to hold that the directions which were issued by the Competent Authority, Nasik, are not consistent with the policy of the Government and that all the relevant and material circumstances had not been brought to the attention of the State Government. It is in these circumstances, that the revised order under Section 8(4) dated 30th April 2004 has been quashed and set aside. There is, in our view, merit in the grievance of the Petitioners that there has not been a full and complete analysis of all the relevant circumstances of this case in the impugned order of the State Government. The order does on the one hand accept that it is a policy of the State Government to allot major shares to the daughters of a land holder in ancestral property on the date of the enforcement of the Act. That being the position, the reason as to why the State Government concludes that the revised statement under Section 8(4) is not consistent with the policy of the Government has not been explained in the impugned order. Equally, we find that there is a considerable degree of merit in the 9 grievance of the Third Respondent that the earlier orders dated 11th March 2004 and 30th April 2004 should have been passed after notice to the Third Respondent to whom in the meantime a decision had been taken in May 2001 to allot the lands. The lands, it may be noted, are specifically reserved in the Development Plan for APMC Nasik. The Third Respondent also has a serious grievance about the fact that the revision which had been filed under Section 34 as late as on 26th February 2004 came to be entertained, after a period of three years had expired, contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the decisions in Automotive Research Association of India (supra) and Vandana Mohan Gunjal (supra) of the two Division Benches of this Court. 8. Having regard to these circumstances, we indicated to Counsel that it would be in the fitness of things if (i) The order dated 11th March 2004; (ii) The revised statement dated 30th April 2004; and (iii) The order dated 18th July 2005 are quashed and the revision that has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 34 on 26th February 2004 is directed to be heard afresh. In fairness, it must be said that this has not been opposed by the Learned Counsel. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of by 10 quashing and setting aside the order of the Urban Development Department dated 11th March 2004 (Exh.M), the revised order dated 30th April 2004 (Exh.N) and the order dated 18th July 2005 of the State Government (Exh.R). The revision filed by The Petitioner under Section 34 on 26th February 2004 (Exh.L) shall be heard and disposed of by the State Government after giving to the Petitioners, the Third Respondent and all the affected parties, an opportunity of being heard. All the rights and contentions of the parties both on merits and in respect of maintainability of the Revision Application are kept open to be decided in accordance with law. The State Government shall upon remand issue a fresh decision within a period of four months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is produced before it. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ( F.I. Rebello, J.) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)