Case: Babu Maruti Dukare Vs. State of Maharashtra

be allowed to retain and enjoy the fruits of crime. Even if one or the other beneficiaries was acquitted for want of necessary intention or knowledge about the commission of forgery, still such a beneficiary could not be allowed to retain the property which was only as a result of the massive fraud, forgery, manipulation and possibly a corruption. In the present matters, it is clear that a massive fraud was committed against the state as well as the original landholders and the poor cultivators who could be allotted some agricultural land out of the surplus land. By committing frauds and by making use of forged and fabricated documents and records the petitioners and their other culprits avoided declaration of about 3750 acres of perennially irrigated land as surplus. The original owners who were holding the lands less than the ceiling limit prescribed by the law would have been entitled to restoration of the some of the lands which would be rendered surplus. Similarly, if whole of the surplus land would not be restored to its original owners, some of it could certainly be allotted to the landless or poor people for cultivation. In the present matter, even though fraud was committed and forged and fabricated records were prepared sometime in 1961-62 or thereafter, it appears that from 1964 itself, complaints about the same were made by the original landholders. It appears that the A. C. B. commenced the investigation but by using their influence with the powers that be, the perpetrators of the crime could delay the investigation for a period of almost 10 years. It appears that on one hand, the A. C. B. was investigating the cases and charge-sheets were filed and on the other hand, the Special divisional Officer holding the appellate powers under the Ceiling Act dismissed the appeals on the basis of record, which was forged and fabricated and on the basis of which culprits were convicted. In view of this, period of limitation prescribed under Section 45 (2) can not come in a way of the State Government and can not deter it from invoking its suo motu revisional power, which was absolutely essential to do justice to the poor original landholders and other landless people and to undo the results of the frauds, forgeries and fabrications. Infact, the State Government would be failing in its duties and responsibilities, if it would not exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction. Otherwise also as pointed out earlier appeals against the convictions were decided in 1985 and thereafter, the accused persons had preferred special Leave Petitions which came to be dismissed. If period of limitation is counted from the conclusion of the criminal prosecution, the action taken by the Government appears to be clearly within the limitation of 3 years. The impugned orders passed from 1986 to 1989 to re-open and make enquiries afresh were clearly passed by invoking suo motu revisional power under Section 45 (2), though the said section is not specifically mentioned in the impugned orders, which makes no difference.( 18 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances and the legal position discussed above, we find no substance and merit in the Writ Petition Nos. 797, 798, 799 and 800 of 1991 and they are liable to be dismissed. ( 19 ) AS far as Writ Petition No. 3238 of 1989 is concerned, the petitioners who are the original land holders only seek certain directions for appropriate enquiry and implementation of the orders passed by the government for fresh enquiry. It appears that initially a Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur was designated as a Enquiry Officer for the purpose of Section 14 of the Ceiling Act. According to the petitioners, the Sub-Divisional officer, Pandharpur was over burdened with his other duties and, therefore, it was not possible for him to complete the enquiry within a reasonable time. Further it was pointed out that the records which were seized by the a. C. B. was not being made available to the enquiry Officer. Therefore, the petitioners sought a direction that an officer of the rank of collector who should be specially designated and appointed as an Enquiry Officer and he should complete the enquiry within six months. They further sought a direction for making complete record available to the Enquiry officer. As per the affidavit filed by Shri. Shankar Narayan, the Assistant Collector, pandharpur, by an order dated 27-9-1991, the government had modified original orders dated 7-8-1989 and 31-10-1989 and in supersession of those orders, the Government has designated the Assistant Commissioner of Land Records, pune as Enquiry Officer. It is also pointed out that now the Assistant Commissioner is designated as a Deputy Commissioner of Pune division. In view of this, we are satisfied that the Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division is sufficiently senior and competent officer to hold such an enquiry. Taking into consideration the huge fraud, forgeries and the large number of people involved in the matter, the Enquiry officer certainly needs some time. In our opinion, the said Enquiry Officer should not be entrusted with any other official duty so that he may fully concentrate on these enquiries and we may expect that he will complete the same within six months from the date of this order. As far as records are concerned, it is pointed out that records of Special Case Nos. 2,5,6 and 7 of 1975 were directed to remain in custody of Special Judge, Solapur as per the order dated 4th June, 1990 in Criminal Application No. 814 of 1990, passed by this Court. Those records may be made available to the Enquiry Officer. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has also brought to our notice that records of some of the matters as required are available with the court and some records could not be traced out but as soon as they were found, they will be produced before the Enquiry Officer. In view of this, Writ Petition No. 3238 of 1989 may be disposed off with certain directions.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is true that the first proviso to Section 45 (2)provides that the suo motu revisional powers shall not be invoked unless appeal against a declaration under Section 21 has not been filed within a period provided for it and that a period of 3 years from the date of such declaration has not lapsed. It means that if appeal is preferred, revisional powers will not be invoked. Further if the period of 3 years has lapsed after the declaration under Section 21, the State shall not exercise revisional jurisdiction. It means that there is a limitation of 3 years. In view of this proviso, Mr. Thorat contended that in the present matters, appeals were preferred by the State and they were rejected in 1977 and secondly a long period of 10 to 12 years had lapsed even after the appeals were dismissed and before the Government issued directions in 1986 to 1989 forthe cases and therefore, the directions given by the Government are liable to be set17 ) THE very question under the ceiling Act was before the Supreme Court in state of Maharashtra Vs. Rattanlal, 1995 (1)Bombay C. R. 177. After reproducing and discussing the provisions of Section 45 of the ceiling Act, Their Lordships observed as follows:". . . . . . . The exercise of such a power has been restricted only to the matters relating to an inquiry or proceedings under Ss. 17 to 21 (both inclusive ). It also prescribed 3 years limitation for the exercise of the revisional power. Before exercising the revisional power the affected party shall also be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. It would be open to the State Government or its delegate to correct any illegality or impropriety committed by the officer or authority. The obvious intendment in conferring suo motu power is to prevent suppression of the inclusion of all agricultural lands held or includable in the holding of the declarant and he/she cannot fall back upon the orders or proceedings as a defence to plead his/her own fraud or suppression of material facts in his/her declaration or the designated officer or authority cannot seek shelter under the orders or a part thereof when the offending order was steeped with illegality or impropriety. Take a hypothetical illustration that the landholder and the officer colluded and in furtherance thereof several lands were not declared in the declaration. The authorised officer declared him to be within the ceiling limit. The suppression of material facts, namely, existence of the undeclared agricultural land had come to the knowledge of the higher authorities after a long lapse of time,. Should it be that limitation of three years would be a bar to exercise suo motu power of a order passed under S. 17 to 21 a bar to reopen the case. Obviously the answers are no. The limitation would start running only from the date of discovery of the fraud of suppression of material or relevant facts or omission thereof and the order under S. 17 is not a bar o exercise revisional power. Take another illustration that in an inquiry or proceedings a land which is declared surplus but was excluded from distribution on fancy grounds so as to enable the landholder to retain the surplus land Benami etc. such cases are liable to reopen under S. 45, though the ceiling order became final. The only inbuilt limitation provided in S. 45 is that while an appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal under S. 21, the revisional power under S. 45 either suo motu or on an application made by an aggrieved person could not be entertained or continued simultaneously. While the appeal is pending if it comes to the knowledge of the authorities that the declarant suppressed material facts or fraud or collusion, those facts should be placed before the Appellate Tribunal and have it adjudicated properly by it or on remand to the primary authority. If after the inquiry or proceedings became final, the higher authorities discovered illegality or impropriety committed in the inquiry or proceedings, action would always be available for initiation by the competent authority and orders could be passed after reasonable opportunity of being heard given to the affectedor person. "In view of the above observations, it is well settled position of law that the judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court orauthority is a nullity and it can be so declared by the competent authority, nobody can be allowed to retain and enjoy the fruits of crime. Even if one or the other beneficiaries was acquitted for want of necessary intention or knowledge about the commission of forgery, still such a beneficiary could not be allowed to retain the property which was only as a result of the massive fraud, forgery, manipulation and possibly a corruption. In the present matters, it is clear that a massive fraud was committed against the state as well as the original landholders and the poor cultivators who could be allotted some agricultural land out of the surplus land. By committing frauds and by making use of forged and fabricated documents and records the petitioners and their other culprits avoided declaration of about 3750 acres of perennially irrigated land as surplus. The original owners who were holding the lands less than the ceiling limit prescribed by the law would have been entitled to restoration of the some of the lands which would be rendered surplus. Similarly, if whole of the surplus land would not be restored to its original owners, some of it could certainly be allotted to the landless or poor people for cultivation. In the present matter, even though fraud was committed and forged and fabricated records were prepared sometime inor thereafter, it appears that from 1964 itself, complaints about the same were made by the original landholders. It appears that the A. C. B. commenced the investigation but by using their influence with the powers that be, the perpetrators of the crime could delay the investigation for a period of almost 10 years. It appears that on one hand, the A. C. B. was investigating the cases andwere filed and on the other hand, the Special divisional Officer holding the appellate powers under the Ceiling Act dismissed the appeals on the basis of record, which was forged and fabricated and on the basis of which culprits were convicted. In view of this, period of limitation prescribed under Section 45 (2) can not come in a way of the State Government and can not deter it from invoking its suo motu revisional power, which was absolutely essential to do justice to the poor original landholders and other landless people and to undo the results of the frauds, forgeries and fabrications. Infact, the State Government would be failing in its duties and responsibilities, if it would not exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction. Otherwise also as pointed out earlier appeals against the convictions were decided in 1985 and thereafter, the accused persons had preferred special Leave Petitions which came to be dismissed. If period of limitation is counted from the conclusion of the criminal prosecution, the action taken by the Government appears to be clearly within the limitation of 3 years. The impugned orders passed from 1986 to 1989 toand make enquiries afresh were clearly passed by invoking suo motu revisional power under Section 45 (2), though the said section is not specifically mentioned in the impugned orders, which makes no difference.( 18 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances and the legal position discussed above, we find no substance and merit in the Writ Petition Nos. 797, 798, 799 and 800 of 1991 and they are liable to beview of this, we are satisfied that the Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division is sufficiently senior and competent officer to hold such an enquiry. Taking into consideration the huge fraud, forgeries and the large number of people involved in the matter, the Enquiry officer certainly needs some time. In our opinion, the said Enquiry Officer should not be entrusted with any other official duty so that he may fully concentrate on these enquiries and we may expect that he will complete the same within six months from the date of this order.