Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bajirao Jivanrao Patil, was the purchaser of agricultural land from Rupchand Chindhu Patil, whose predecessor-in-title had purchased the land from Gulab Supdu Tadavi, a tribal, on 26-03-1970. The Assistant Collector, Jalgaon initiated suo-motu proceedings for restoration of the land to the tribal under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, but dropped the proceedings by order dated 28-02-1976. After 17 years, on 15-06-1993, the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division issued a notice to the petitioner purportedly exercising suo-motu revisional powers under Section 7 of the Act. Eventually, by order dated 15-12-2011, the Additional Commissioner allowed the revision and set aside the Assistant Collector's order. The petitioner challenged this revisional order before the High Court. The court considered whether the revisional power under Section 7 could be exercised after such a long delay. The court held that although the Act does not prescribe a specific period of limitation for suo-motu revision, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time. A delay of 17 years was held to be unreasonable, and the revisional order was set aside. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Suo-Motu Revision - Reasonable Time - Section 7 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 - The Act does not prescribe a period of limitation for exercise of suo-motu revisional powers, but such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. In the present case, the Additional Commissioner initiated revision proceedings after 17 years from the order of the Assistant Collector dated 28-02-1976, which was held to be unreasonable and unsustainable. The court set aside the revisional order dated 15-12-2011. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner could exercise suo-motu revisional powers under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 after a lapse of 17 years from the original order, and whether such delayed exercise is permissible in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15-12-2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.
Law Points
- Revisional power under Section 7 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act
- 1974 must be exercised within reasonable time
- Suo-motu revision after 17 years is unreasonable and unsustainable
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 51
WRIT PETITION NO. 483 OF 2012
S. V. Gangapurwala, K.K. Sonawane
Mr. V.T. Chaudhary for petitioner, Mr. M.K.Deshpande for respondent No. 1, Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Gulab Supdu Tadavi (deceased, through L.R. Maharu Tulab Tadvi), The Commissioner (Upper Ayukta) Nasik Division, Nasik, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the revisional order passed by the Additional Commissioner under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the revisional order dated 15-12-2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division.
Filing Reason
The Additional Commissioner initiated suo-motu revision proceedings after 17 years from the original order of the Assistant Collector dated 28-02-1976, which the petitioner contended was beyond reasonable time.
Previous Decisions
Assistant Collector, Jalgaon dropped the restoration proceedings by order dated 28-02-1976. The Additional Commissioner allowed revision by order dated 15-12-2011.
Issues
Whether the Additional Commissioner could exercise suo-motu revisional powers under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 after a lapse of 17 years from the original order?
Whether such delayed exercise of revisional power is permissible in law?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the revisional power under Section 7 of the Act of 1974 could not have been exercised after 17 years, relying on Shridhar Damodhar Kamlaskar (Wani) deceased heirs and others Vs. Sonu Ganaji Dhumase and others, 2003(2) Bom. C.R. 50.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional power under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, though not subject to a specific period of limitation, must be exercised within a reasonable time. A delay of 17 years in initiating suo-motu revision is unreasonable and renders the revisional order unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The Additional Commissioner, eventually, allowed revision under his order dated 15-12-2011.
The Act of 1974 does not prescribe any period of limitation for exercise of suo-motu revisional powers, but such power must be exercised within reasonable time.
Procedural History
The Assistant Collector, Jalgaon initiated suo-motu proceedings for restoration of land to tribal but dropped them on 28-02-1976. On 15-06-1993, the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division issued notice to the petitioner for suo-motu revision under Section 7 of the Act of 1974. The Additional Commissioner allowed the revision on 15-12-2011. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 483 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and allowed on 05-08-2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974: Section 7
