Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed against the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, setting aside the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (SLDT) order and remanding the matter for de novo inquiry under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The petitioner's grandfather, Dasrao Deshpande, had bequeathed land to the petitioner and his sister through a will dated 11.06.1970; after the grandfather's death on 25.10.1975, mutation was recorded on 15.11.1975. An inquiry under the Act was initiated in December 1975; the petitioner appeared before the SLDT and submitted a reply. By order dated 26.02.1976, the SLDT declared the petitioner a non-surplus holder. No further steps were taken until 27.04.1993, when the Additional Commissioner issued a show-cause notice for suo motu revision. The petitioner objected, contending that the notice was issued beyond the three-year limitation prescribed under Section 45(2) and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction. Despite the objection, the Additional Commissioner passed an order on 30.09.1993, setting aside the SLDT order and remanding the matter for fresh inquiry. The core legal issue was whether the Additional Commissioner could exercise revisional jurisdiction after a lapse of 14 years. The High Court, after considering the proviso to Section 45(2) and binding precedents—including the Full Bench in Manohar Ramchandra Manapure v. State of Maharashtra, which held that calling for records requires conscious application of mind and must be done within three years—found that no record was called for within the prescribed period. The first notice was issued 14 years later, which rendered the proceedings without jurisdiction. The Court also relied on Bansilal Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra, Lotan Fakira Patil v. State of Maharashtra, Champabai patwari v. State of Maharashtra, Shalikram Solunke v. State of Maharashtra, and Gowardhandas v. State of Maharashtra, all of which held that suo motu revision beyond the three-year limit is void ab initio. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order dated 30.09.1993 was quashed and set aside, and the rule was made absolute. The decision reiterates that revisional powers under the Act are strictly time-bound and cannot be exercised after unreasonable delay.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Ceiling on Holdings - Suo Motu Revision Limitation - Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, Section 45(2) - The Additional Divisional Commissioner issued a notice for suo motu revision of an SLDT order declaring the petitioner a non-surplus holder, 14 years after the SLDT order. The Court held that the proviso to Section 45(2) mandates that the revisional authority must call for the record within three years from the date of the declaration under Section 21. The act of calling for records cannot be equated with a mechanical or ministerial act; it requires conscious application of mind. Since no record was called within the three-year period, the revisional proceedings are beyond jurisdiction and the impugned order is set aside. The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Manohar Ramchandra Manapure and other authorities to reiterate that such delayed suo motu action is void ab initio. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner's suo motu revisional order under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, passed 14 years after the SLDT order, is barred by limitation
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed; impugned order dated 30-09-1993 set aside; rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act
- 1961 must be exercised within three years from the date of declaration under Section 21
- Calling for records under Section 45(2) requires conscious application of mind
- Suo motu revision initiated after 14 years is beyond limitation and void ab initio
