Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ghanshyam Tukaram Solunke, was an original land holder in proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. He filed a return under Section 12 of the Act showing his holding as 64 Acres and 10 Gunthas with two members in his family unit. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (SLDT), Majalgaon, after detailed enquiry, held that the petitioner's holding on 26.09.1970 was 63 Acres and 6 Gunthas, which was less than the ceiling area, and declared him a non-surplus holder. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, initiated suo motu revision proceedings under Section 45(2) of the Act and issued a notice after the expiry of the three-year limitation period from the date of the SLDT order. The petitioner filed a reply contending that the notice was illegal and beyond the powers vested under Section 45(2). The Additional Commissioner, without properly considering the reply, set aside the SLDT order on 21st January 1986 and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry regarding gift deeds in favour of the sisters. After remand, the SLDT conducted a fresh enquiry and again declared the petitioner a non-surplus holder by order dated 27.04.1987. The petitioner challenged the revisional order before the High Court. The legal issue was whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to initiate suo motu revision beyond the three-year limitation period. The court held that the suo motu revision initiated after the limitation period was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.08.1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Limitation for Suo Motu Revision - Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - The Additional Commissioner initiated suo motu revision proceedings after the expiry of three years from the date of the original order of the SLDT, which is beyond the prescribed limitation period - Held that such revision is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained (Paras 2-4). B) Land Ceiling - Remand Order - Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - The revisional authority set aside the SLDT order and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry, but the remand order itself was passed beyond the limitation period - Held that the revisional authority had no jurisdiction to pass the remand order, and the subsequent order of the SLDT after remand is also without jurisdiction (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to initiate suo motu revision proceedings under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 after the expiry of the three-year limitation period from the date of the original order passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 11.08.1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, in file No. 1990/ICHR1 is quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Limitation for suo motu 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
- Suo motu revision initiated after the limitation period is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained
- The revisional authority must consider the limitation aspect before entertaining revision
- Remand by revisional authority does not revive the limitation period for the original revision
