Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vilas Ratanchand Shah, filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 31st August 1998 in Writ Petition No.2475 of 1980, which upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, dated 16th June 1980. The appellant had submitted a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, by order dated 27th December 1975, declared 12A 00G as surplus. The Additional Commissioner invoked suo motu revision under Section 45(2) of the Act and revised the order, declaring 29A-35G as surplus. The appellant challenged the revision on the ground that no notice was issued to him. The High Court held that the revision was valid as the appellant had opportunity to be heard and the order was based on record. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Suo Motu Revision - Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - Validity of Revision Order - The Additional Commissioner invoked suo motu revision under Section 45(2) and revised the Tribunal's order dated 27/12/1975, declaring 29A-35G as surplus. The appellant challenged the revision on ground of no notice. The Court held that the revision was valid as the appellant had opportunity to be heard and the order was based on record. (Paras 1-3)
B) Land Ceiling - Notice - Natural Justice - Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - The Court held that even if notice was not served, the appellant had participated in the proceedings and was aware of the revision. The principles of natural justice were not violated as the appellant had opportunity to present his case. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suo motu revision order passed by the Additional Commissioner under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, without issuing notice to the appellant, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The order of the Additional Commissioner dated 16/6/1980 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31/8/1998 are upheld.
Law Points
- Suo motu revision under Section 45(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act
- 1961 is valid even if notice is not served on the landholder
- provided the landholder had opportunity to be heard
- Natural justice principles
- Section 12 return
- Section 14 enquiry
- Section 17 notice
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 123
Letters Patent Appeal No.119 of 1987 with Civil Application No.5998 of 1987 in Writ Petition No.2475 of 1980
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Anoop V. Mohta
Mr. S.M. Kamble for the petitioner
Shri Vilas Ratanchand Shah
The State of Maharashtra, The Additional Commissioner Pune Division, Pune, The Additional Tahasildar and Chairman, Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (S.L.D.T.) Karvir Division, Kolhapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against judgment in Writ Petition challenging order of Additional Commissioner under Maharashtra Ceiling Act
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order of Additional Commissioner declaring his land as surplus
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the suo motu revision order passed by Additional Commissioner under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act without notice
Previous Decisions
Tribunal order dated 27/12/1975 declared 12A 00G as surplus; Additional Commissioner by order dated 16/6/1980 revised it to 29A-35G; Writ Petition No.2475/1980 dismissed on 31/8/1998
Issues
Whether the suo motu revision order under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Ceiling Act without notice to the appellant is valid
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that no notice was issued before the suo motu revision, violating principles of natural justice
Ratio Decidendi
The suo motu revision under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 is valid even if notice is not served, as long as the landholder had opportunity to be heard and the order is based on record.
Judgment Excerpts
This is a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant-original petitioner, whereby, the Judgment dated 31st August, 1998, passed in Writ petition No.2475/1980, wherein the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 16/6/1980, passed in Suo motto Revision was questioned.
The Additional Commissioner, Division Pune, had invoked the provision under section 45(2) of the Mah. Ceiling Act and Suo Motto revised the order dated 27/12/1975, passed by the Tribunal.
Procedural History
The appellant filed return under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act. The Tribunal by order dated 27/12/1975 declared 12A 00G as surplus. The Additional Commissioner suo motu revised the order under Section 45(2) on 16/6/1980, declaring 29A-35G as surplus. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.2475/1980, which was dismissed on 31/8/1998. The present Letters Patent Appeal was filed against that dismissal.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961: Section 12, Section 14, Section 17, Section 45(2)
