SIDRAM S/O GANPATRAO SOLUNKE, DECEASED THROUGH L RS (DNYANESHWAR @ NANASAHEB S/O SIDRAM SOLUNKE AND DIGAMBER S/O SIDRAM SOLUNKE) Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT AND ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AURANGABAD DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition takes exception to the notice issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad bearing No. 1978/ICHR/287 dated 27.04.1992 and notice dated 01.06.1992.

(2.) The Petitioners are resident of village Hingni (Khurd), Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. The Petitioners are legal heir and successor of the deceased Sidram Ganpatrao Solunke. The Petitioners are original land holders in the proceeding under the subject matter. It is the case of the Petitioners that, they have filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961 along with their father namely Sidram Ganpatrao Solunke, now who is no more. Thereafter, the S.L.D.T., Majalgaon in File No. 75/ICHR/961 vide the judgment and order dated 27.04.1976 had declared the Petitioners as the surplus land holders to the extent of 47 Acres and 36 gunthas along with the father. The land which is declared as surplus to the extent of 47 Acres and 36 Gunthas of Majalgaon is given in possession to who said has been allotted by the competent authority.

(3.) It is the further case of the Petitioners that, the Additional Commissioner/Respondent No. 2 by exercising powers Under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act reopened the enquiry i.e. initiated a suo moto proceeding by issuing notice in the year 1992. The Petitioner submitted that, the Respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction or powers to start or reopen the suo moto enquiry under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act after the period of 3 years from the date of judgment and order passed by the S.L.D.T. The Additional Commissioner must apply his mind within a period of 3 years by summoning the land holder and to start the enquiry. The commissioner must complete the enquiry within a period of 3 years from the date of the order passed by the S.L.D.T. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the Additional Commissioner has not called the record of the S.L.D.T. within a period of 3 years. The Additional Commissioner has issued the notice of suo moto enquiry for the first time after 16 years i.e. on 27.04.1992 and immediately another notice on 01.06.1992. The Petitioners/land holders have never received any kind of notice or intimation by the Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, this writ petition may be allowed and notices dated 27.04.1992 and 01.06.1992 may be quashed and set aside.