ANNASAHEB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 31st March, 1986 passed by the respondent no. 2 under section 45 (2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 on the ground that the Additional Commissioner had no powers to exercise jurisdiction under section 45 (2) of the said Act, since the proceedings were not reopened within the statutory period of limitation of three years as specified under said section and this is apparent from the fact that the notice of reopening of the case was issued on 19th December, 1985 when the order of the Tribunal was admittedly passed on 10. 10. 1979.

(2.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners, placing reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Manohar Ramchandra Manapure & others vs. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 1989 Mh. L. J. 1011, submitted that the Commissioner could not have exercised the jurisdiction under section 45 (2) of the said Act in the matter and that the Full Bench of this Court has clearly held that in case of failure on the part of the authority to apply the mind for reopening the case within three years from the date of passing the order by the Tribunal, there could not be reopening of the case and further that inspite of petitioner making a specific averment in the petition that the powers of suo motu revision were effectively exercised in the year 1986, that is beyond a period of three years from the date of the order dated 11. 10. 1979, the respondent no. 2 has not produced any records to show that it had, in fact, applied its mind within a period of three years from the date of the said order. He further submitted that considering the provisions contained in section 45 (2) read with 21 and 8 of the said Act, the notice of reopening of the proceedings pursuant exercise of suo motu revisional powers has also to be issued within three years from the date of the order, as otherwise the land holder can be put to a great prejudice and it virtually would amount to defeat the very provisions of the law contained in the said Act. THE learned A. G. P. on the other hand, submitted that the impugned order dated 31. 3. 1986, on the face of it, discloses that the suo motu revisional powers were exercised within a period of three years and the very first sentence of the order discloses that the memorandum of the number of this revision was opened on 9. 8. 1982 under section 45 (2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 to call for the record of the proceedings under section 14 and 21 of the said Act started and decided by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Tribunal on 11. 10. 1979 in case No. PTH-254 and that itself shows that the authority had exercised its suo motu revisional powers within the period of limitation prescribed under the said section under the said Act.

(3.) THEREFORE, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the notice of reopening of the proceedings, in exercise of powers under section 45 (2) of the Act, is necessarily to be intimated to the concerned party within a period of three years from the date of the order of the Tribunal.