STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RATTANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises against the judgment of the single Judge of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 1903 of 1980 dated June 23, 1983 : (reported in 1984 Mah LR 1). The facts lie in short compass, are stated hereunder.

(2.) The only question that arises for decision is whether the Commissioner or the State Govt. has been devoid of the jurisdiction to direct the primary authority to reopen the determination of the surplus area under S. 17. S. 45 of the Act reads thus:

(3.) By operation of sub-sec. (3), the Commissioner which includes Addl. Commissioner has been invested with the revisional powers of the State Govt. either suo motu or on an application made to it by an aggrieved person to call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings under Ss. 17 to 21 (both inclusive); to satisfy itself of the legality or propriety of the inquiry or proceeding of any part thereof under the sections and may pass such order thereon as it deems fit, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. The exercise of the revisional power is permissible under the first proviso only if an appeal under S. 21 has not been filed and three years period from the date of the order has not been expired and that the appellate tribunal had not passed any order thereon, or three years from the date of the impugned order had not elapsed. In other words the simultaneous exercise of revisional power was prohibited, while the appellate remedy was still available to the landholder, or the suo motu revisional power may not be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the impugned order. The proviso No. 2 says that if the lands already declared surplus was distributed as per the provisions of the Act, it need not be interfered with. Where it is alleged that the land declared surplus is less than the actual land which could be declared surplus, the revisional authority is empowered to exercise its power under third proviso. The authorities have all the general powers while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under the Act. They have also. been expressly empowered to exercise the power either suo motu or on an application made to it by an aggrieved person. The exercise of such a power has been restricted only to the matters relating to an inquiry or proceedings under Ss. 17 to 21 (both inclusive). It also prescribed 3 years limitation for the exercise of the revisional power. Before exercising the revisional power the affected party shall also be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. It would be open to the State Govt. or its delegate to correct any illegality or impropriety committed by the officer or authority. The obvious intendment in conferring suo motu power is to prevent suppression of the inclusion of all agricultural lands held or includible in the holding of the declarant and he/she cannot fall back upon the orders or proceedings as a defence to plead his/her own fraud or suppression of material facts in his/her declaration or the designated officer or authority cannot seek shelter under the orders or a part thereof when the offending order was steeped with illegality or impropriety. Take a hypothetical illustration that the landholder and the officer colluded and in furtherance thereof several lands were not declared in the declaration. The authorised officer declared him to be within the ceiling limit. The suppression of material facts, namely, existence of the undeclared agricultural land had come to the knowledge of the higher authorities after a long lapse of time. Should it be that limitation of three years would be a bar to exercise suo motu power or an order passed under S. 17 or 21 a bar to reopen the case. Obviously the answers are no. The limitation would start running only .from the date of discovery of the fraud or suppression of material or relevant facts or omission thereof and the order under S. 17 is not a bar to exercise revisional power. Take another illustration that in an inquiry or proceedings a land which is declared surplus but was excluded from distribution on fancy grounds so as to enable the landholder to retain the surplus land Benami etc. such cases are also liable to reopen under S. 45, though the ceiling order became final. The only inbuilt limitation provided in S. 45 is that while an appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal under S. 21, the revisional power under S. 45 either suo motu or on an application made by an aggrieved person could not be entertained or continued simultaneously. While the appeal is pending if it comes to the knowledge of the authorities that the declarant suppressed material facts or fraud or collusion, those facts should be placed before the Appellate Tribunal and have it adjudicated property by it or on remand to the primary authority. If after the inquiry or proceedings became final, the higher authorities discovered illegality or impropriety committed in the inquiry or proceedings, action would always be available for initiation by the competent authority and orders could be passed after reasonable opportunity of being heard given to the affected land-holder or person.