RATANLAL RAMGOPAL JETHALIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the Commissioner can exercise power under section 45 (2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural (Ceiling on Holdings) Amended Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act) when an appeal is filed by the aggrieved party against the order of the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the S. L. D. T."). The power under section 45 (2) is circumscribed in the section itself. It lays down that the power under section 45 (2) cannot be exercised or nothing in the section shall entitle the State Government to call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings of a declaration or part thereof under section 21 in relation to any land, unless an appeal against any such declaration or part thereof has not been filed within the period provided for it and a period of three years from the date of such declaration or part thereof has not elapsed. Once an appeal is preferred by an aggrieved party to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in respect of any enquiry or proceedings under the Ceiling Act, the suo motu power of the Government to call for the record of any enquiry or proceedings is taken away. If the Commissioner inspite of an appeal being filed, exercises his power, his order will be without jurisdiction and such an order cannot be allowed to be sustained.

(2.) In the instant case, the petitioner was declared surplus holder by the S. L. D. T. to the extent of 9 acres 8 gunthas by judgment and order dated January 24, 1976. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. No cross-objections were filed by the State in the said appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by judgment and order dated April 13, 1976 with a modification as to the exercise of choice of retention of land. It is thereafter the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, issued a show cause notice on May 22, 1979 and by judgment and order dated January 9, 1980 remanded the case to the trial Court. It is to be noted that the order of the S. L. D. T. is merged in the order of the appeal Court. That order is no longer available to be revised by the State. It is only the order of the appeal Court requires to be revised by the competent authority. Section 45 (2) of the Ceiling Act does not empower the State Government to revise the order of the appellate authority and, therefore, the exercise of power under section 45 (2) of the Ceiling Act by the Commissioner is obviously without jurisdiction. It is, therefore, the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner dated January 9 1980, remanding the matter to the S. L. D. T. will have to be quashed.

(3.) In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The judgment and order dated January 9, 1980, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Case No. 79-ICH-R 768 is quashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.