BAPURAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Case No. 1978/ICH/R/2295, the judgment and order dated 26-9-1991 passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short, referred to as the S.L.D.T.) in Case No. 75/ICH/887 and also the judgment and order of M.R.T., Aurangabad dated 10-2-1992 in Case No. 74/A/91/B, to the extent of remand order.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed returns under section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1960 (for short, referred to as the said Act) on 26-11-1975. He has shown his total holding to the extent of 92 acres and 14 gunthas. The said holding was shown including the survey number held by his major son Babasaheb and the other lands which were in the names of other members of the family. The S.L.D.T., Majalgaon instituted enquiry proceedings against the petitioner in the year, 1975 in File No. 1975/ICH/887 and after making full-fledged enquiry, the S.L.D.T., came to the conclusion that after deducting Pot-Kharab area, the holding of the petitioner remains 91 acres and 34 gunthas. The S.L.D.T. excluded the share of the major son to the extent of 18 acres and 14 gunthas and came to the conclusion that the net holding of the petitioner remains to the extent of 73 acres and 20 gunthas. The S.L.D.T., after allowing the land holder to retain 54 acres of land, declared the petitioner surplus holder to the extent of 19 acres and 20 gunthas. The S.L.D.T., delimited 19 acres and 20 gunthas of land from the holding of the petitioner and distributed it to the landless persons as per section 27 of the said Act.

(3.) It is further case of the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad by exercising powers under section 45(2) of the said Act, reopened the suo motu enquiry proceedings by issuing notice dated 5th September, 1986 i.e. after 10 years of the judgment of the S.L.D.T. It is further case of the petitioner that though the judgment of the Commissioner reveals that the memorandum of the revision was opened on 30-11-1978 but, the notice of the revision was sent on 5-9-1986 and served on the petitioner first time in the year, 1986 i.e. after 10 years of the judgment of the S.L.D.T. The further contention of the petitioner is that not only that the Additional Commissioner must initiate the proceedings within three years from the date of order of S.L.D.T., but, he should apply his mind within three years and serve the notice to the landholder within three years from the decision of the S.L.D.T. The Additional Commissioner had not called the record and not served notice to the petitioner within three years. It is further case of the petitioner that the provisions of the said Act contemplates that the Additional Commissioner himself should apply his mind. However, in the present case, the Deputy Collector scrutinized the papers and at his instance, the enquiry was reopened after three years. It is the case of the petitioner that the suo motu enquiry was initiated by the Additional Commissioner in the year, 1986 and the matter was decided on 6th August, 1990. The Additional Commissioner partly set aside the order passed by the S.L.D.T., and remanded the matter to the S.L.D.T. for fresh decision. It is specific contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is without jurisdiction and powers and, hence, it is illegal.