BANSILAL RAMGOPAL BHATTAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay dated 27th February, 1987 as well as the order passed by Surplus Land Determination Tribunal dated 21st February, 1976.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner was a member of the joint family which was assessed as HUF by the Income Tax Authority. The Assessment Orders passed by the Income Tax Authority for the year 1941-42 and 1943-44 clearly establish this position. The property in question situated at village Newale, Taluka Palghar, district Thane was acquired by the petitioner from the income of the joint family. The mutation entry with regard to the suit land purchased by the petitioner is registered in the village record being Mutation Entry No. 114. The Mutation entry was certified on 9-10-1953, which records that the property has been purchased in the name of the petitioner vide sale deed dated 7-7-1944. After coming into force of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961, the petitioner submitted returns in which he took the stand that the said property was owned by HUF. After examining the said return, by order dated 30-1-1965, the competent authority declared that land admeasuring 23 Acres and 11 gunthas as surplus land held by the petitioner. It is stated that some time in the year 1965 the properties belonging to HUF were partitioned by a partition deed, though not registered. However, partition deed came to be registered on 30-12-1970. The Act of 1957 was amended by amending Act of 1972 which came into force from 4-5-1972. After the said amendment, the petitioner filed fresh returns before the competent authority, which were duly processed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Palghar, constituted under the said Act. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 21st February, 1976, concluded that no surplus land was held by the petitioner. It is relevant to point out that the said decision of the Tribunal remained unchallenged and has attained finality. At this stage it is necessary to point out that the said decision of the Tribunal dated 21st February, 1976 was duly signed by all the Members of the Tribunal including the Chairman. This position is established from the certified copy of the order passed by the Tribunal. It is contended by the petitioner that in any case an order which is not signed by all the Members and Chairman of the Tribunal does not automatically become invalid on such technical ground, particularly when the said order has been acted upon by the parties, inasmuch as the members of HUF, after partition, have started separately cultivating their respective holding. The petitioner, however, received a show cause notice some time in the month of December 1985 purported to be issued under section 17 (1) of the Act dated 19-12-1985. Interestingly, the said notice does not indicate any reason as to why the proceedings were sought to be reopened. On receipt of the said notice the petitioner submitted his reply before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Palghar. The Tribunal by its order dated 3-2-1986 decided the matter against the petitioner, though it had no jurisdiction to do so. The Tribunal declared that the petitioner was holding 13 Acres 6 gunthas of land as surplus land. It is stated that though the said order shows that it was dated 3-2-1986, the same was not implemented till November 1986 and the petitioner was unable to challenge the same. Later on, the petitioner received notice from the office of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division dated 18-11-1986 that suo motu revision is initiated by the Commissioner under section 45 (2) of the Act. By the said notice the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the order dated 3-2-1986 should not be revised on the basis of mutation Entry No. 114. In other words, the Mutation Entry was the only ground indicated in the said show cause notice. The petitioner appeared and filed a detailed reply before the Additional Commissioner and supported his stand on the basis of oral argument. The Additional Commissioner, however was pleased to hold that the holding of the petitioner was surplus to the extent of 113 Acres and 36 gunthas and thus ordered taking possession of the Surplus Lands.

(3.) THE aforesaid order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division and the order passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal dated 3-2-1986 are subject matter of this writ petition.