KAMLABAI PURUSHOTTAM DHUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioners and shri Loney, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

(2.) Present petitioners who are legal representatives of original petitioner purushottam challenged the order dated 16-4-1993 passed by respondent No. 2 declaring 4.22 acres of land as surplus. The said order is passed in revisional jurisdiction under section 45 of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on holdings) Act, 1961; (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act for short).

(3.) As the facts are not in dispute and question raised is only of tenability of revision, it would be appropriate to state the facts in brief. Purushottam filed return under section 12 of the Ceiling Act and after due inquiry, respondent No. 3 declared 9. 09 acres of land as surplus under section 21 of Ceiling Act. The issue regarding the validity of sale dated 2-5-1972 by which he sold survey No. 26/2 of mouza Belkhed, area 4.22 acres was also considered by respondent No. 3 and it was held to be a genuine sale transaction. Aggrieved by declaration of 9. 09 acres of land as surplus, Purushottam filed an Appeal under section 33 of Ceiling Act before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Present respondent No. 1 was also respondent therein and it filed belatedly a Cross Objection in that Appeal through its Officer on Special Duty questioning the finding in relation to sale and sought inclusion of survey No. 26/2, area 4.22 acres within holding of Purushottam. That cross Objection was opposed by appellant Purushottam who pointed out that it was filed beyond limitation and there was no request for condonation of delay. He also pointed out that purchaser Viswanath Raut was necessary party and he was not joined in the proceedings. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the appeal on merits on 30-9-1987 while it also dismissed the Cross Objection but that was on the ground of bar of limitation. Petitioner contends that accordingly respondent No. 3 took possession of 9. 09 acres of land. Thereafter, deceased petitioner received notice from respondent No. 2 under section 45 of Ceiling Act and it was mentioned therein that prima facie there was mistake committed by respondent No. 3 by excluding field survey No. 26/2 from holding of purushottam. He objected to the proceedings pointing out that Appeal was already preferred and land was already taken into possession, and hence suo-motu revision was not permissible. In spite of this objection, on 16-4-1993, respondent No. 2 reopened the proceedings and declared survey No. 26/2 area 4.22 acres as surplus. Purushottam thereafter filed present petition. He expired during pendency petition and his widow, sons and daughters are now on record as his legal heirs.