1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 934 OF 1992 Sopan S/o Ganpatrao Shinde (Deceased) Through L.Rs. 1. Balasaheb S/o Sopanrao Shinde, age : major, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pathrud, Taluka Majalgaon, District : Beed. 2. Kausalyabai W/o Sopanrao Shinde, Age : major, Occ : Agriculture and Household, R/o as above. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. Two copies are served on him. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Division, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.R. Bharad holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for petitioners. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondents ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 6th January, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Advocate Mr. S.R. Bharad holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke for petitioners and learned A.G.P. for respondents. 2 2. Short contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that the S.L.D.T. determined the extent of surplus land with the petitioners as per order dated 20th August, 1976. That order attended finality and almost 16 years thereafter, by the impugned notice dated 04.03.1992, the powers under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1960 are sought to be exercised. Learned Counsel for petitioners states that there are no apparent reasons recorded for exercising that power belatedly and the notice itself shows roving attitude. He relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1999 Mh.L.J. 1011 (Manohar Ramchandra Manapur and others V/s State of Maharashtra and another). 3. Learned A.G.P. supports the impugned notice. According to her, the petitioners have only been called to furnish necessary information and the competent authority will, in the light of information so furnished, take further appropriate decision. She, therefore, states that the Petition as filed is premature. 4. Fact that the S.L.D.T. decided the extent of surplus land on 20th August, 1976 is not in dispute. That order was not questioned further and has attended the finality. In this background, recourse to Section 45(2) needs to be scrutinized. 3 The notice only mentions that the enquiry conducted by the S.L.D.T. was not proper. It calls upon the petitioner to file Lawani Patrak for the year 1970-71. It also mentions that total holdings of the petitioner appeared to be 134 Acres 9 Guntha but therein only 43 Acres 16 Guntha was disclosed. The birth certificate, who proved that sons were major, has also been called for. 5. Except for the grievance about the extent of land, other material called for, does not show that the petitioners have played any fraud with the authorities. Even in relation to the extent of holdings, the date on which, the alleged correct holding of petitioners came to knowledge of respondent, is not disclosed. The reasons for taking scrutiny and action after expiry of 16 years are not apparent. I find the controversy is covered by the Full Bench Judgment mentioned supra. The notice dated 04.03.1992 is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp934.92