UTTAMRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent/State.This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th February, 1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in file No. 1991/ICHR/4.

(2.) The Petitioner herein is resident of village Salapuri, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. He is original land holder who filed returns in Form No. III, as required Under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act. The Petitioner had shown total 4 members in his family unit. He has shown his total holding to the extent of 98 Acres 30 Gunthas. The holding shown is total dry crop lands. The S.L.D.T. after detailed enquiry and after recording statement of the Petitioner and also statement of Talathi and after appreciating the documents by judgment and order dated 08th January, 1976 came to the conclusion that, the holding of the Petitioner is 67 Acres 32 Gunthas and after excluding 13 Acres 41 Guntha. The S.L.D.T. directed to delimit the said land from survey No. 130.

(3.) The counsel for the Petitioner submits that, said surplus land has been already delimited and distributed to the landless persons in the year 1976 and no appeal was preferred by the Petitioner challenging the order of S.L.D.T. Therefore, that order attended finality. It is further argued that the Commissioner by order dated 26.11.1979 remanded the case to the S.L.D.T. and directed the S.L.D.T. to make a fresh enquiry in the matter. Accordingly the S.L.D.T. by judgment and order dated 15.03.1980 maintained its earlier decision. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, the Additional Commissioner second time exercised the powers Under Section 45(2) of the said Act and initiated suomoto enquiry by issuing notice to the Petitioner in the year 1986. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, such notice is beyond the statutory period of 3 years. In fact from the first order of S.L.D.T. in 1976, already the proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner and by his order dated 26.11.1979 the matter was remanded back to the S.L.D.T. Therefore, second time it was not permissible for the Additional Commissioner to reinitiate the suomoto enquiry. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, only once such powers can be exercised by the Additional Commissioner. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the powers exercised by the Additional Commissioner, second time are beyond the jurisdiction and scope of Section 45(2) of the said Act. Therefore, relying on the ground in the petition and oral submissions made across the bar, the counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, this petition may be allowed. In support of her contention she placed reliance on various pronouncements of this Court.