GOOL NOSHIR DAVIERWALA Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions can be considered together as they involve common questions and pertain to the same property which is the subject matter of these proceedings.

(2.) IT is not necessary to elaborate all the events that have given rise to the present proceedings. Suffice it to point out that the Additional Commission, Konkan Division, Bombay decided to take suo motu action in respect of the proceedings which was already concluded in favour of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2177 of 1986 in respect of the subject land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. It is not in dispute that the declaration was made on 29-3-1976 whereas the Commissioner issued notice to the petitioners on 8-7-1985 expressing his mind that he intends to take suo motu action in exercise of the powers under section 45 of the said Act. The Commissioner proceeded to decide the matter on merits though objection was taken on behalf of the petitioners that the powers under section 45 could not be exercised after a lapse of three years from the date of declaration. The Commissioner has rejected that objection on the premise that after the declaration was made on 29-3-1976, papers were received in his office on 24-1-1979, and therefore, he could have exercised suo motu jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of section 45 of the Act. Although the Commissioner has also dealt with the matter on merits, to my mind, the present petitions would succeed on the ground that action initiated by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers under section 45 of the Act was not within three years from the date of the declaration or part thereof and therefore, without authority of law.

(3.) THE relevant dates have already been indicated above that the declaration was made on 29-3-1976 whereas the notice on the basis of which suo motu action was initiated was issued on 8-7-1985. Obviously, that notice has been issued after a lapse of three years from the date of the declaration. To reassure myself as to whether the notice was issued belatedly, due to some administrative reasons, and the Commissioner had already taken an informed decision within the prescribed period; the authority was called upon to furnish the necessary information. It is conceded by the Assistant Government Pleader before this Court on the basis of instructions from the officers who are present in this Court that there is no record to show that the Commissioner had taken any informed decision to initiate suo motu action prior to the issuance of notice dated 8-7-1985. If that be so, we will have to proceed on the assumption that decision to take suo motu action was taken only on 8-7-1985. In that case, the action would be clearly impermissible by virtue of the mandate of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Act as it was not taken before the expiry of three years from the date of the declaration which was issued on 29-3-1976.