1 W.P.No.4206/97 UNREPROTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4206 OF 1997. Qazi Mumtaz Mahiuddin S/o Qazi Gous Mohiuddin, died per L.Rs. i) Jamaloddin Mumtaz Mohiuddin ii) Mahasan Mumtaz Mohiuddin. iii)Aziz Mohiuddin Mumtaz Mohiuddin. All aged major, Occ.Agri., R/o Zari, Taluka and District Parbhani. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Dy.Collector, Land Recorms, Collectorate, Parbhani. 3. Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Kazi, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.R.P.Phatke, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the State. 2 W.P.No.4206/97 ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The land bearing S.No.191 situated at Zari, Dist. Parbhani was an inam land. The said inam stood abolished and was converted into Khalsa land vide order of the Deputy Collector dated 28.12.1964. The present petitioners were in possession of the land and as such the present petitioners being occupants of the said land, the land vested with them. The Collector, suo-motu initiated inquiry U/s 6(1) of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 and vide order dated 29.9.1994 directed to take the suit land S.No.191 - Gat No.522 under Government supervision. The present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3 W.P.No.4206/97 3. Mr.S.S. Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though limitation is not prescribed for invoking the suo-motu powers, still, the same has to be exercised within a reasonable time. In the present case, the suo- motu powers were exercised after 20 years which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a reasonable time. 4. The learned counsel further contends that in the revenue record also since 1959-60, the petitioners were shown as occupants of the said land. As such on the notified date i.e. on 1.7.1960, the petitioners were the occupants of the said land and so the lands vested with them. Under any circumstances, they were at least kabiz-e-kadim. 5. It is a trite law that if no limitation period is prescribed for initiating suo-motu inquiry then the same has to be exercised within a reasonable time. In the present case suo-motu powers were exercised by the Collector after 4 W.P.No.4206/97 twenty (20) years which certainly can not be said to be a reasonable time. On this count itself the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. On factual matrix also, it can be seen that in the revenue record the name of petitioner was mutated in the ownership and the possession column right since 1959-60. As such on the notified date i.e. 1.7.1960, the petitioners were in possession of the property. In view of that the Respondents could not have passed an order vesting the property with the Government. The impugned orders are as such quashed and set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. 7. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp420697 5 W.P.No.4206/97