1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3582 OF 1991 Mir Jamin Ali S/o Bahadurali, age Major, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Parli-Vaijanath, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra through Commissioner, Aurangabad. ... Respondent. -------- Shri. A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe , Assistant Government Pleader, for the Respondent No. 1. -------- CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE: 06th JANUARY, 2010 ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1) This Writ Petition takes exception to the notice 23-05-1991 issued by respondent. 2) Brief facts as narrated in the petition are as under :- 2 The petitioner herein filed his written Under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as per written inquiry Under Section 7 & 21 of the said Act, the petitioner herein was declare as non surplus by order dated 26-03-1976 3) It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of May, 1991, the petitioner received notice dated 23-05-1991 Under Section 45(2) of the said Act directing the petitioner to remain present on 19-07-1991 at Collector office, Parbhani for arguments on the point mention in the said notice. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has no jurisdiction to open the case after lapse of 15 years from the date of decision / order by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (SLDT). It is further case of the petitioner that the powers Under Section 45(2) of the said Act cannot be exercised by the authority after lapse of fifteen (15) years and as per said Section any action 3 should be initiated within three (3) years from the date of decision / order passed by the SLDT Tribunal. Therefore, the notice which is issued after fifteen (15) years by the respondent authority is in disregard to the provisions of Section 45 of the afore said Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited my attention to the pleading and grounds taken in the petition and also relied on following reported judgments in support of his contention. 1] Lotan Fakira Patil V/s. State of Maharashtra & others [2002(1) Mh.L.J.] 2] Laxminarayan S/o Narayandas Jaju V/s. State of Maharshtra [2003(1) Mh.L.J.] 3] Gool Noshir Davierwala & others V/s Additional Commissioner, Kokan Division & another [2003(2) Mh.L.J.] 4] Champabai W/o Shankarrao Patwari & another V/s. State of Maharashtra & others [2004(1) Mh.L.J.] 4 5] Ramchandra Gopal Baelekar & another V/s. Commissioner of Amravati Division, Amravati [2005(3)Mh.L.J.] Relying on the afore said judgments, the provisions of Section 45(2) of the said Act. The learned counsel would submit that this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 4) The learned Assistant Government Pleader conceded that notice issued by the respondent authority is after lapse of about 15 years from the decision / order of the SLDT Tribunal. 5) After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP appearing for the State, I am of the considered view that notice issued by the respondent authority is not within limitation as prescribed by Sub Section 2 of Section 45 of the said Act. The said Section stipulates three (3) years 5 period to initiate action under the provisions of Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. Section 45(2) of the said Act reads thus :- “ The State Government may, suo moto or on an application made to it by the aggrieved person, at any time, call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings under Section 17 to 21 (both inclusive) * * * * for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any inquiry or proceedings (or any part thereof) under those sections * * * * * and may pass such order thereon as it deems fit, after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that, nothing in this sub section shall entitle the State Government to call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings of a declaration or part thereof under section 21 in relation to any land, unless an appeal against any such declaration or part thereof has not been filed within the period provided for it * * * * and a period 6 of three years from the date of such declaration or part thereof has not elapsed: [Provided further that, no order shall be passed under this section so as to affect any land which is already declared surplus and distributed according to the provisions of this Act: Provided also that, the revisional jurisdiction under this section shall be exercised only where it is alleged that the land declared surplus is less than the actual land which could be declared surplus.]” 6) Mere perusal of the provisions of Section 45(2) would show that, the suo-moto inquiry or revision can be initiated within a period of three (3) years from the date of declaration. In the instant case the order passed by the S.L.D.T. is dated 26-03-1976 and the notice issued by the respondent herein is dated 23-05-1991. Therefore, the notice is issued after lapse of about fifteen (15) years from the 7 decision / order of the S.L.D.T. This Court had occasion to interpret the provisions of Section 45(2) of the said Act in afore said judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In case of “ Champabai W/o Shankarrao Patwari & another V/s. State of Maharashtra & others [2004(1) Mh.L.J.]”. This Court held that “ the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 lays down two conditions which are required to be satisfied before the State-Government or its delegate could invoke the revisional powers. The said two conditions are : (a)that, appeal has not been filed against the order /declaration made by S.L.D.T. within the prescribed period and (b) that, a period of 3 years has not elapsed from the date of order or declaration made by S.L.D.T. Though, the decision to initiate the proceedings was taken within 3 years time, the same was without application of mind and hence bad in law. The actual initiation of 8 proceedings was after a lapse of about 8 to 10 years from the date of decision to initiate the proceedings. This delay was totally unexplained. No purpose is served whatsoever, by only taking a decision to initiate the proceedings if the proceedings are not initiated within a reasonable time. In the absence of any justification for the delay, much less satisfactory, the proceedings were not initiated by the Additional Commissioner within a reasonable time. Proceedings quashed. “ In the instant case proceedings are initiated after 15 years from the declaration made by the S.L.D.T. Tribunal that the petitioner is not surplus holder. Proceedings initiated by the respondent are not within a period of three (3) years time as prescribed Under Section 45(2) of the said Act. Apart from this, even delay has not been explained at all by the respondent why the proceedings are initiated after lapse of 15 years. Therefore, notice issued by the respondent is not within reasonable time, and therefore, 9 same is quashed and set aside. 7) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause “B”. 8) Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of, as no orders as to costs. (S.S.SHINDE, J.) sdm/wp3582.91 10