Case: Babu Maruti Dukare Vs. State of Maharashtra

( 2 ) TO state in brief, Saswad Mali sugar Factory Limited, Malinagar, Taluka: malshiras, District Solapur was registered under the Companies Act sometimes inAll the shares of the company were held by its founders, namely, Narayanrao Sopanrao borawake, Bhagwan Maruti Jadhav and haribhau Balwantrao Girme and their close relatives. Haribhau Balwantrao Girme was the managing Director of the company from 1958 onwards. The company was registered with an object to start a factory for the manufacture of sugar. The company purchased about 1500 to 1600 acres of perennially irrigated land at akluj, Bijwadi, Tambave and Mahalung villages in Malshiras Taluka. During the period from 1932 to 1940, the company also took on lease under registered lease deeds about 5000 acres of land from the owners in the aforesaid four villages. This was also perennially irrigated land and it was owned by about 200 to 250 farmers. After purchasing and taking lands on lease as stated above, the company created 125 subleases either in favour of the directors or shareholders of the company. The board of Directors used to decide about the creation of such subleases year to year but for a period of 11 months only. Every year the decisions were communicated to the concerned talathis and names of thewere recorded in the relevant records. Each of thewas holding the land between 50 to 500 acres of irrigated land. The existence of 125with their respective holdings continued till 26. 1. 1962.( 3 ) THE Maharashtra Agricultural lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 was enacted and came into force with effect fromUnder this Act, certain limit was put on the agricultural holdings of individuals as well as families. The agricultural land held by any individual or family more than the ceiling limit was to be declared as a surplus and was to be distributed as per the scheme under the said Act. Under Section 12, a person or a family unit holding land in excess of the ceiling area was required to submit returns. The cut off date was 4th August, 1959 for the purpose of determining as to whether a person was holding any land in excess of the ceiling. The directors and shareholders of the said company were holding huge area of agricultural land while the ceiling was only 18 acres in the case of irrigated land. In view of this if the true returns would have been submitted by the said company and 125of the company, huge land would have been declared as a surplus land and it would be either restored back to the original land holders or would be distributed among the landless people as per the scheme of the Act. However, to avoid declaration of such surplus land, the directors and shareholders and office bearers of the company and its employees and some talathis working in the Revenue Department prepared false records by forging and manipulating records with an intention to show that besides the company, there were in all 384 lessees andThese persons included 125 persons who wereFor the long term as per the practice, Lavan Chithhis (Cultivation Chits/slips) were prepared every year and its record was maintained in the register of the company and also entries of suchor lavanchitthis were taken in the records maintained by the Revenue department. However, lavanchitthis and lavanchitthis registers for the years62 were destroyed. False and bogus lavanchitthis were prepared to show that there were 384Accordingly, the false lavanchitthi registers were prepared. Entries in the revenue records were also manipulated and forged to support this. The intention was that the land in possession of 125should not be declared as a surplus land and was not required to be surrendered to the Government under the Act. Having prepared fraudulent, bogus and fabricated records, the returns were4 ) SOMETIMES in 1964, the original land holders, from whom the lands were taken on lease by the company, came to know about such fraud and they started making complaints to the Government and to the Anti Corruption bureau (for short A. C. B. ). In 1964 itself, the a. C. B. took up the investigation and seized records. But sometime in 1970 oral directions were given by the Government to the A. C. B. to stop the investigations. However, the A. C. B. went on insisting the Government to permit them to investigate and finally in 1974, the government permitted the A. C. B. to carry on investigations. After investigation,were filed against the directors and employees of the company,of the company and the beneficiaries of such manipulation and some revenue officers under sections 466,468,471,477 (a), 120 (b) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of theseCriminal Case nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7 of 1975 were filed. All these cases were tried by the Special Judge, Solapur and the accused persons were convicted and sentenced for different offences. All the accused persons preferred criminal appeals against the convictions in the year 1977. Those appeals were disposed off by four different judgments, one each for the original criminal case. In the appeals, the High Court also found that the offences of fraud and forgery were committed by the directors of the company in collusion with and with the assistance of some employees of the company and of the Revenue department. Most of the convictions were maintained. However, some of the beneficiaries were acquitted on the ground that they were possibly not having knowledge or intention to commit the crime though they were signatories to the returns and the documents prepared for that purpose. The accused persons preferred special Leave Petitions against dismissal of their appeals. Special Leave Petitions also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court.( 5 ) THE judgments in appeals were delivered from February to April, 1985. The said judgments were forwarded to the government by the A. C. B. pointing out the findings of the Court about the fraudulent declarations made by the accused persons in the proceedings under the Ceiling Act with a request to make enquiry and take appropriate action. Onthe Government forwarded judgments in appeal to the Collector for the appropriate enquiry and to take an action to determine as to what would be the surplus land in these cases. Initially, the Collector directed enquiry into 4 original Khatas which were fraudulently converted into 44 bogus khatas or accounts. Therefore, the original land holders (Khatas) made representation to the government and the A. C. B. to make enquiry about all the land holders and occupants pertaining to whole of about 6,000 acres of lands. Onthe A. C. B. submitted three lists of the bogus Khatas which covered almost the entire land. Onthe government directed theofficer, Pandharpur to make enquiry under section 14 (4) of the Ceiling Act pertaining to the list of 30 persons. Ontwo orders were issued by the Government in respect of the land holders stated therein and the lands held by them in Ahmednagar and solapur6 ) THE above facts gave rise to the present petitions. Writ Petition No. 3238 of 1989 is filed by Babu Maruti Dukare and 28 other persons. All these petitioners claimed to be original land holders or their decendents entitled to retain the land in view of the provisions of the Ceiling Act. They appear to be victims of the fraud and forgery committed by the directors, shareholders, their relatives and employees of the company. By this writ petition, they sought directions to the government to appoint an officer on special duty, who is not below the rank of the Collector, tote the ceiling cases which were ordered to beby the Government of Maharashtra. They further sought direction to the Government to forthwith send back all the relevant records to the Enquiry officer. They also sought direction that such officer on special duty should complete enquiries and pass final orders under the Ceiling act within a period of six months or within such a period as this Court may deem7 ) WRIT Petition Nos. 797, 798, 799 and 800 of 1991 are filed by the persons who claim to be theof the lands and who are likely to be adversely affected by the orders passed by the Government for fresh enquiry under Sections 14 (4) of the Ceiling Act. Their main contention is that in all these matters, returns were submitted and enquiries were completed and appropriate orders were passed by the concerned Tehsildar. Not only this against the said orders, some appeals were also preferred and those appeals were also dismissed by the concerned appellate authority way back in 1977 and these orders passed under the ceiling Act had become final. It is contended that the Government could not give directions tothese cases almost 12 years after the decision had become final. Such direction by the Government was barred by the limitation and the Government could not legally give such directions. Therefore, these petitioners seek to quash the orders passed by the Government on89 and

Court's reasoning:
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.