Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tukaram s/o Dajiba Harkal, a resident of Renakhali, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani, was the original land holder in proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. He filed a return under Section 12 of the Act. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (SLDT), by its judgment and order dated 31-03-1976, declared the petitioner as a surplus land holder. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, issued a notice bearing No.1979/ICHR276 dated 14-07-1992 under Section 17(2) of the Act. The petitioner challenged this notice by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without giving him an opportunity to show cause, as required under Section 17(2). The court examined the provisions of Section 17(2) and noted that it mandates that before taking action, the Commissioner must give the holder an opportunity of being heard. The court found that the impugned notice did not provide such an opportunity. The court also observed that the SLDT's order dated 31-03-1976 had already declared the petitioner as a surplus holder, and the notice under Section 17(2) was a subsequent step. However, the court held that the notice was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement. The court quashed the notice and directed the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Notice under Section 17(2) - Opportunity of Hearing - Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, Section 17(2) - The petitioner, an original land holder, filed a return under Section 12 of the Act. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal declared surplus land on 31-03-1976. The Additional Commissioner issued a notice under Section 17(2) without giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause. The court held that the notice was issued without complying with the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing, and thus quashed the notice. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice issued under Section 17(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, which did not provide an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause before declaring surplus land, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 14-07-1992 is quashed. The respondents are directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- opportunity of hearing
- Section 17(2) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961
- notice requirement
- surplus land determination
