1 WP 3547.1991 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3547 OF 1991 Kisanlal Fatechand Lodha Age : 68 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Kalamb, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Miss Manjushri Shendage ,Advocate holding for Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, A.G.P. for the State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 30/06/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the State. 2. The petitioner impugns the notice issued by the Commissioner, Aurangabad U/s 45 ( 2 ) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 [ For short, ‘ the Act ’ ]. 2 WP 3547.1991 - [ J ] 3. The petitioner’s land was declared as surplus by the order of the S.L.D.T. dated 26/12/1975. The petitioner was holding land admeasuring 129 Acres 10 gunthas vide order dated 26/12/1975. The S.L.D.T. declared the area of 74 Acres as surplus. Thereafter on 30/4/1991, the impugned notice was issued by the Commissioner. The same is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 4. Miss Manjusha Shendage, Advocate holding for Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said notice is bad in law. The Commissioner could not have issued such a notice after the lapse of 16 years. Even no reason is stated as to why he wants to reopen the matter after such a long slumber. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manohar Ramchandra Manapure & others V/s State of Maharashtra & another reported in 1989 Mh.L.J. 1011 and another Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Champabai Shankarrao Patwari & another V/s State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2004 (2) Bom. C.R. - 749. 5. The learned counsel submits that in view of the law settled by the Full Bench of this Court, the impugned notice is per se and ex-facie 3 WP 3547.1991 - [ J ] illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. The fact that the S.L.D.T. vide its Order dated 26/12/1975 had determined the holding as well as surplus holding of the petitioner, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that prior to 31/4/1991, no steps were taken by the Commissioner for exercising its powers U/s 45 of the Act. From the perusal of the notice, it is manifest that no proper reasons are given for exercising the revisional jurisdiction. More over, even after a long slumber of 16 years, the same could not have been done. The record does not show any application of mind on the part of the Commissioner within the stipulated period of three ( 3 ) years. No record was called within the said period. In view of the law laid down in the case of Manohar Ramchandra Manapure & others V/s State of Maharashtra and others referred supra, the impugned notice being illegal, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ( iv ). No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 3547.1991 - [ J ]