Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shivram A. Galbe, was a landholder in village Devegaon, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani. He filed a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (the Ceiling Act) in 1975. The Special Land Development Tribunal (S.L.D.T.), Pathri, after examining the record, declared the petitioner a surplus landholder to the extent of 19 Hector 09 R (comprising 19H 92R from Sy. No. 92 and 09H 17R from village Simurgavan) vide judgment and order dated 13.03.1976. The excess land was taken possession and allotted to others. Subsequently, on 14.07.1992, the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, issued a notice under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, purporting to reopen the enquiry suo moto. The petitioner challenged this notice by way of a writ petition, contending that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings after the lapse of 3 years from the date of the S.L.D.T. order. The petitioner argued that the Additional Commissioner must apply his mind and call for the record within 3 years, and in this case, the notice was issued after 16 years, rendering it without jurisdiction. The State opposed the petition, submitting that the notice was rightly issued under Section 45(2). The court, after hearing both sides, held that the Additional Commissioner's power under Section 45(2) is subject to a limitation period of 3 years from the date of the original order. Since the notice was issued after 16 years, it was beyond the prescribed period and thus without jurisdiction. The court allowed the petition and quashed the notice dated 14.07.1992.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Suo Moto Revisional Powers - Limitation - Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - The Additional Commissioner must apply his mind and initiate enquiry within 3 years from the date of the order of the S.L.D.T. - In the present case, the notice was issued after 16 years, which is beyond the prescribed period - Held that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings after the expiry of 3 years (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate suo moto enquiry under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 after the expiry of 3 years from the date of the original order passed by the S.L.D.T.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Notice dated 14.07.1992 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, is quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Limitation for suo moto revisional powers
- Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act
- 1961
- Period of 3 years from the date of original order
- Lack of jurisdiction after expiry of limitation
