HEMLATABEN BHUPENDRABHAI VADIWALA Vs. MAMALATDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is directed against the show-cause notice dated 06. 09. 1996 issued by Mamlatdar, Kamrej under Section 84 (C) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Act" for short ). The notice is issued on the ground that the sale of land purchased by the petitioners was in contravention to Section 2 (6) and Section 63 of the Act. The notice is sought to be challenged only on one ground, namely, the same was issued belatedly.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the Mamlatdar could not have issued the notice after reasonable period of time. When statute does not provide any period of limitation, it is expected that the authority should act within reasonable period. Reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in case of State of Punjab and others V/s. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. reported in (2007)11 SCC 363 wherein the Apex Court was pleased to uphold a decision of the High Court and quashed the reassessment notice issued by the sales tax authorities after a period of about five years.

(3.) IN the present case, however, I do not find any reason to interfere at the stage of show-cause notice. Ordinarily, this Court discourages litigation challenging issuance of show-cause notices and permits authorities to conclude the proceedings and pass final order before examining the legality thereof. There are however certain well recognised exceptions to this rule.