1 WP 4530.1998 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4530 OF 1998 1. Tatyaba S/o Bapurao Kadam Age : 65 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 2. Raosaheb S/o Kundalik Kadam Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 3. Bhanudas S/o Kundalik Kadam Age : 58 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 4. Dattu S/o Kundalik Kadam Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 5. Nandabai S/o Bhanudas Kadam Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 6. Dwarkabai D/o Raosaheb Kadam Age : 55 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 2 WP 4530.1998 - [ J ] 7. Dinkar Bansi Shinde Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 8. Gulab Babu Shaikh Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 9. Shabbir Babu Shaikh Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 10. Alam Babu Shaikh Age : 47 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 11. Khatija Kasam Sayyed Age : 49 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 12. Jaibu Shikandar Sayyed Age : 36 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 13. Mumtaz Bannu Sayyed Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 3 WP 4530.1998 - [ J ] 14. Gangaram S/o Bapu Kadam Age : 39 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. 15. Shivaji S/o Bansi Shinde Age : 51 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. ....PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Additional Commissioner Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Collector, Beed. 4. Tahsildar Patoda, Dist. Beed and Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal Patoda, Dist. Beed. 5. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Auangabad/Pune. 6. Ganpat S/o Trimbak Naik (Deceased ) - through L.R. Saraswatibai W/o Ganpat Naik Age : Major, R/o : Manur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. .... RESPONDENTS 4 WP 4530.1998 - [ J ] Mr. S.P.Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20/07/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners had purchased the land from S.Nos. 33 and 34 from its erst-while owner Ganpat Trimbak Naik vide registered sale deed dated 3/9/1976. As per the recital of the said sale deed, the petitioners were put in possession on 5/5/1968. The proceedings before the S.L.D.T. were initiated. The S.L.D.T. declared that said Ganpat Naik is not a surplus land holder. Thereafter, suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner U/s 45 (2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands [ Ceilings on Holdings ] Act, 1961 [ For short, ‘ the Act of 1961 ’ ] and the Commissioner vide its order dated 30/4/1989 remitted the matter back to the S.L.D.T. After remand, the S.L.D.T. held said Ganpat Naik to be surplus land holder to the extent of 32 Acres 5.5 gunthas. The S.L.D.T. directed to delimit S.Nos. 124, 126 and 134 of the original land holder as these lands 5 WP 4530.1998 - [ J ] were purchased by other persons after 1996. Some of the persons preferred Revision before the Commissioner i.e. the respondent no. 5, who set aside the order and again directed fresh enquiry. Thereafter, again the respondent no. 4 declared 32 A 5.5 gunthas as surplus land and directed to delimit the said S.Nos. i.e. 124, 126 and 134. The original land holder again filed proceedings before the respondent no. 5, who partly allowed the Appeal. The respondent no. 5 confirmed the area of the surplus land, but remanded the matter to the S.L.D.T. for delimiting the lands as per the rules. After remand, the respondent no. 4 delimited land S.No. 37-A, 37, 124, 126, 134, 138, 42-AA and 34. The said order was challenged by one Ramesh Mandalecha before the respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 5 again directed fresh enquiry. Thereafter, vide order dated 17/8/1998, the respondent no. 4 decided to delimit petitioner’s land. The same was without issuing notice to the petitioners. The same is assailed before this Court. 3. Mr. S.P.Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when it was adjudicated that the original owner did not have any surplus land, then after 10 years the Commissioner could not have invoked suo motu revisional jurisdiction U/s 45 ( 2 ) of the Act of 1961. The same was beyond his jurisdiction. The learned counsel relies on the full 6 WP 4530.1998 - [ J ] bench Judgment of this Court in a case of Manohar Ramchandra Manapure & Oths. V/s The State of Maharashtra and another reported in 1989 Mh.L.J. - 1011 and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Dagduba Dajiba Kadam V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. - 37. 4. The learned counsel further contends that the order passed by the respondent no. 4 delimiting the land held by the petitioners as surplus land is behind the back of the petitioners and without notice, as such violative of principles of natural justice 5. On 15/7/2011, an opportunity was given to the respondent- State to clarify if the land declared as surplus has been allotted to some other persons. The learned Additional Govt. Pleader submits that he could not get any instructions regarding the same. 6. The registered sale deed dated 3/9/1976 filed on record itself contains recital that the possession of the said land has been delivered to the petitioners on 5/5/1968. There is no other evidence contradicting this position. More over, the proceedings before the S.L.D.T. were conducted without issuance of notice to the petitioners. The same was in violation of 7 WP 4530.1998 - [ J ] the principles of natural justice. Such an order passed without issuing notice to the petitioners and prejudicial to their interest, is illegal and bad in law. More over, as per the Judgment of the full bench of this Court in a case of Manohar Ramchandra Manapure referred supra, it has been categorically held that the necessary application of mind on the part of the Commissioner beyond 3 years is not permissible in law. In the present case, the same is after 10 years. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order can not be sustained. 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’. No Costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4530.1998 - [ J ]