Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ansiram Gundiram Gavane, was a landholder in Parbhani, Maharashtra. In 1975, he filed a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961. The Sub-Divisional Land Tribunal (S.L.D.T.) Parbhani, after examining the record, declared him a non-surplus landholder by judgment and order dated 21 February 1976. More than 16 years later, on 13 July 1992, the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, issued a notice under Section 45(2) of the Act, initiating a suo moto enquiry into the same matter. The petitioner challenged this notice by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, contending that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings after such a long delay. The State argued that the notice was validly issued under Section 45(2). The court considered the rival submissions and noted that the power under Section 45(2) is a revisional power that must be exercised within a reasonable time. A delay of 16 years was held to be inordinate and fatal to the exercise of such power. The court quashed the notice dated 13 July 1992 and allowed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Suo Moto Revisional Powers - Section 45(2) Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961 - Limitation - The Additional Commissioner issued a suo moto notice after 16 years from the original order declaring the petitioner as non-surplus land holder. The court held that the power under Section 45(2) must be exercised within a reasonable period, and a delay of 16 years is inordinate and renders the notice unsustainable. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner can initiate suo moto enquiry under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961 after a period of 16 years from the original order?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 13.07.1992 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, is quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Limitation for suo moto revisional powers
- Reasonable time for exercise of power under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961
- Delay of 16 years is fatal
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 81
Writ Petition No. 2562 of 1992
Shri E. P. Sawant for Petitioner, Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for Respondent/State
Ansiram S/o Gundiram Gavane
The State of Maharashtra, The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging a suo moto notice issued under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of notice dated 13.07.1992 issued by the Additional Commissioner.
Filing Reason
The Additional Commissioner issued a suo moto notice after 16 years from the original order declaring the petitioner as non-surplus land holder, which the petitioner contended was without jurisdiction due to inordinate delay.
Previous Decisions
The S.L.D.T. Parbhani passed an order on 21.02.1976 declaring the petitioner as a non-surplus land holder.
Issues
Whether the Additional Commissioner can initiate suo moto enquiry under Section 45(2) after a period of 16 years from the original order?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to reopen the enquiry after 3 years from the date of the S.L.D.T. order, and the notice after 16 years is illegal.
Respondent/State argued that the notice was rightly issued under Section 45(2) and the petition is devoid of merits.
Ratio Decidendi
The power under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961 must be exercised within a reasonable period. A delay of 16 years in issuing a suo moto notice is inordinate and renders the notice unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
It is admitted position that the S. L. D. T. passed the order initially on 21.02.1976 thereby the petitioner was declared as non surplus land holder.
Therefore, said notice for suo moto enquiry was after the period of about 16 years from the date of the order passed by the S. L. D. T. Hence, the notice dated 13.07.1992 issued by the Additional Commissioner cannot be sustained.
Procedural History
The S.L.D.T. Parbhani passed an order on 21.02.1976 declaring the petitioner as non-surplus land holder. On 13.07.1992, the Additional Commissioner issued a suo moto notice under Section 45(2) of the Act. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2562 of 1992 in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the notice. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 07.03.2011.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961: 12, 45(2)
