Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were landlords of land admeasuring 4H 27½ Guntha in Survey No. 77 at village Chinchoti, challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, dated 3rd September 1990. The respondent No. 3 was a tenant in respect of 2 Acres 5½ Guntha. Proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were initiated, and the Tahsildar passed an order permitting the tenant to purchase the land. The tenant paid the purchase price and a certificate under Section 32-M was issued. The landlords challenged this order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which set aside the order and remanded the matter. After remand, the Tahsildar confirmed the earlier order regarding 2 Acres 5½ Guntha and dropped proceedings for the balance. After about 9 years, the Additional Commissioner suo-moto initiated revision and set aside the Tahsildar's order, directing restoration of 2 Acres to the respondents. The High Court held that the suo-moto revision after 9 years was inordinate and without jurisdiction, as Section 32-G does not confer suo-moto powers. The impugned order was quashed and set aside.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Suo-moto Revision - Delay - The Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, suo-moto initiated revision proceedings after 9 years and set aside the Tahsildar's order dated 29th April, 1981. The High Court held that the suo-moto powers, if any, must be exercised within a reasonable period, and a delay of 9 years is inordinate and fatal. The impugned order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-4) B) Tenancy Law - Jurisdiction - Section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The High Court observed that Section 32-G does not confer any suo-moto powers on the Commissioner to revise orders passed under that section. The Commissioner's order was without jurisdiction. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to suo-moto initiate revision proceedings after a delay of 9 years and set aside the order of the Tahsildar under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 3rd September 1990.
Law Points
- Suo-moto revisional powers must be exercised within reasonable time
- Delay of 9 years is fatal to exercise of suo-moto powers
- Section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy Act does not confer suo-moto powers on Commissioner
- Limitation principles apply to administrative revisions
