Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar (D) By Lrs vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

4. In the year 1964, the original landowners from whom land was taken by the Company realized the fraud played by the Company and its share holders upon the Revenue authorities of the Act and filed a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) challenging the manipulation of revenue records by the Company of its shares in collusion with the Revenue Officers to investigate into the fabricated records.

After the aforesaid Act came into force, the land ceiling proceedings of the land holdings of the share holders of the Company and the alleged sub- lessees took place and it was held by the Tahsildar under the Act, that everybody held the land within the ceiling limit and the said decision was appealed and attained finality in the year 1977, as the appeals filed against the orders passed in the land appeals were also dismissed.

5. In the year 1974, the ACB obtained permission from the Maharashtra State Government to investigate into the alleged offences punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471, 477A, 120B and 109 of the IPC, which were registered after investigation of the case by the said Bureau against the share holders of the Company and others. The said criminal cases were tried by the Special Judge, Solapur against the accused persons in special case Nos. 2, 5 to 7 of 1975. The accused persons, namely, the share holders were convicted for different offences and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for the period mentioned in the judgment and order of the Special Judge. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Special Judge, the accused persons preferred criminal appeals before the High Court which passed judgments and orders dated 6.2.1985, 2.4.1985, 20.4.1985 and 23.4.1985 respectively dismissing the said appeals. The accused persons preferred special leave petitions before this Court which were also dismissed in the year 1985.

7. Some of the appellants in the connected appeals who are purchasers of the land from the Company's share holders who were accused and persons who were acquitted in the criminal case, and some of the appellants who were not the accused in the criminal case, had also filed the writ petitions before the High Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the State Government under the aforesaid provisions of the Act appointing the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry pertaining to the list of bogus land holders mentioned in the impugned order.

8. It is urged by Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Aryama Sundaram and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, that it is not open for the State Government to appoint an Enquiry Officer in exercise of its power under Section 14(4) of the Act, with a direction to him to reopen the cases in relation to the holdings of land of the Company share holders and its sub-leases after 12 years of the proceedings in the ceiling matters under the Act were concluded on merit and the same attained finality. It is further urged by them that the State Government could not have suo motu exercised its power beyond the period of three years limitation prescribed under Section 45(2) of the Act to reopen the cases and revise the orders passed in the ceiling matters, which proceedings have attained finality. The orders passed in the appeals in the ceiling proceedings have attained finality, the State Government could not have exercised its suo-motu power to call for the records pertaining to the land holdings of the appellants as the period of three years limitation stipulated in the above provision was over from the date of the orders passed under Section 21 by the Tehsildar who was the Revenue Officer in the land ceiling matters and those orders have attained finality. Therefore, it is urged that the exercise of power by the State Government under Section 14(4) of the Act, appointing an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the land holdings of the Company share holders and sub- leases on the alleged ground that the share holders have created sub-leases in respect of their holdings of land by fabricating the revenue records against whom criminal cases were registered and were convicted and sentenced them for the charges by the Special Judge and in which proceedings, the Company and the share holders who are not the parties and other appellants in respect of civil appeals, who were subsequent purchasers of the land from the share holders, and they have acquired constitutional right upon their land holdings under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is totally impermissible in law for the State Government to pass the impugned order as the same is without jurisdiction for the reason that Section 45 (2) of the Act, only confers power upon it to exercise its suo motu revisional power within three years from the date of passing of the orders in the land ceiling cases and orders passed in the appeals and call for the records in the revisional proceedings to examine the proprietory of such orders passed in the land ceiling proceedings of the land under Section 21 of the Act on the declaration made by the holders of the land under Section 6 of the Act, declaring that the declarants do not own the surplus lands under the Act, which orders were the subject matter of appeals at the instance of the State Government and its officers before the appellate authority and the same came to be dismissed on merits by the appellate authority after hearing them and the said judgments and orders have attained finality and the State Government has not chosen to exercise its suo motu revisional power under Section 45(2) of the Act within the stipulated period of three years. It is further urged by the learned senior counsel that the State Government has no statutory power either under Section 45(2) or under Section 14(4) of the Act to enquire into the very same subject-matter of the land holdings of the share holders, sub-lessees and the purchasers of the land under the guise of exercise of its statutory power under the provisions of the Act, by appointing an officer to conduct enquiry in relation to the land in question with reference to the revenue records of the land of the villages referred to supra.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench in affirming the orders of the State Government is not required to be interfered with for one more reason, namely, the High Court, after adverting to certain findings recorded in the criminal cases with regard to the land ceiling and on the alleged fraud against the declarants in getting the orders passed under Section 21 of the Act, has recorded the findings and reasons holding that the orders of the State Government do not warrant interference as the same are in the interest of public at large.

In view of the foregoing reasons, the appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the appellants in each of these appeals out of which 50% to be given to the State Government of Maharashtra, and the remaining 50% to be given to the contesting private respondents at whose instance the orders were passed by the State Government. The parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the nature of land and not to create any encumbrance upon the land involved in these proceedings till the enquiry is over.