LAWS(BOM)-2011-3-39

DNYANOBA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On March 07, 2011
DNYANOBA S/O. RAMKRISHNRAO GAWALI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition takes exception to the notice issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad bearing No.1978/ICH-R/ 550 dated 03.09.1992.

(2.) The petitioner is resident of Vita, Tq. Gangakhed. The petitioner is legal heir and successor of the deceased Dnyanoba Ramkrishnarao Gawali. The grand father of the petitioner is original land holder in the proceeding under the subject matter. It is the case of the petitioner that, the grand father of the petitioner filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961. Thereafter, the S.L.D.T., Gangakhed in the judgment and order dated 26.03.1976 had declared that the grand father of the petitioner is not a surplus land holder.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that, the Additional Commissioner/respondent No.2 by exercising powers U/Sec. 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 Sec. 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 17 years i. e. on 03.09.1992. The petitioner/land holder has never received any kind of notice or intimation by the respondent No.2. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this writ petition may be allowed and notice dated 03.09.1992 may be quashed and set aside.