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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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/*