SHAIKH AHMED NAZIR AHMED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition takes exception to the notice dated 05.08.1992 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad bearing No. 1979/ICHR/528.

(2.) The Petitioner is resident of Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. The Petitioner filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961. The Petitioner received notice Under Section 13(2) of the said Act which was issued on 29.10.1976 and say to the effect is submitted by the landholder on dated 13.11.1976 before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Parbhani. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted the return before the S.L.D.T. Parbhani. Thereafter notice Under Section 17(1) and 17(2) dated 01.09.1977 and 05.09.1977 issued to the Petitioner and his brother and they submitted their say. The S. L. D. T. after going though the relevant record came to the conclusion that the Petitioner and his brother as non surplus land holder vide judgment and order dated 27.09.1977.

(3.) It is the further case of the Petitioner 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 in the matter and reopened the proceedings. 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 landholder 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 15 years i.e. on 05.08.1992. Therefore, the counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, this writ petition may be allowed nd notice dated 05.08.1992 may be quashed and set aside.