Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shaikh Ahmed, a resident of Parbhani, filed a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. He received a notice under Section 13(2) on 29.10.1976 and submitted his say on 13.11.1976 before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Parbhani. Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Parbhani, after considering the record, declared the petitioner and his brother as non-surplus landholders by judgment and order dated 27.09.1977. After about 15 years, on 05.08.1992, the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, issued a notice under Section 45(2) of the Act purporting to reopen the proceedings suo moto. The petitioner challenged this notice by way of a writ petition, contending that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to initiate suo moto proceedings after the expiry of three years from the date of the original order. The court examined the provisions of Section 45(2) and held that the Additional Commissioner must apply his mind and summon the landholder within three years from the date of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Since the notice was issued after 15 years, it was beyond the limitation period and without jurisdiction. The court allowed the petition and quashed the notice dated 05.08.1992.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Suo Moto Revision - Limitation - Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - The Additional Commissioner must apply his mind and summon the landholder within three years from the date of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Reforms) to initiate suo moto enquiry; failure to do so renders the notice without jurisdiction. In this case, the notice was issued after 15 years, hence quashed. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate suo moto proceedings under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 after a period of three years from the date of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Reforms)?
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice dated 05.08.1992 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
Law Points
- Limitation period for suo moto revision under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act
- 1961 is three years from the date of the original order
- Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner to reopen proceedings after expiry of limitation period
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 70
Writ Petition No. 2257 of 1992
Shri E. P. Sawant for the Petitioner, Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State
Shaikh Ahmed S/o Nazir Ahmed
The State of Maharashtra, The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 for reopening proceedings after 15 years.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the notice dated 05.08.1992 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad.
Filing Reason
The Additional Commissioner issued a notice under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act to reopen proceedings after 15 years, which the petitioner contended was without jurisdiction as it was beyond the three-year limitation period.
Previous Decisions
The Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Parbhani, by judgment and order dated 27.09.1977, declared the petitioner and his brother as non-surplus landholders.
Issues
Whether the Additional Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate suo moto proceedings under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 after a period of three years from the date of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Reforms)?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Additional Commissioner must apply his mind and summon the landholder within three years from the date of the order of the S.L.D.T., and since the notice was issued after 15 years, it was without jurisdiction.
Respondent/State argued that the notice was rightly issued under Section 45(2) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The Additional Commissioner must apply his mind and initiate suo moto proceedings under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 within three years from the date of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Reforms). Failure to do so renders the notice without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The Additional Commissioner must apply his mind within a period of 3 years by summoning the land holder and to start the enquiry.
The Additional Commissioner has issued the notice of suo moto enquiry for the first time after 15 years i. e. on 05.08.1992.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. Notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 29.10.1976, and the petitioner submitted his say on 13.11.1976. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Parbhani, passed an order on 27.09.1977 declaring the petitioner and his brother as non-surplus landholders. On 05.08.1992, the Additional Commissioner issued a notice under Section 45(2) to reopen the proceedings. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that notice.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961: 12, 13(2), 17(1), 17(2), 45(2)
