RAMESH BAPURAO CHIDDARWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner-landowner questions the order dated 17-1- 1992. passed by the respondent No. 3 Commissioner in suo motu revision proceeding under section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on holdings) Act, 1961. The grievance made in nut shell is that though, show cause notice was only in relation to survey No. 9, during hearing the Commissioner also included the survey Nos. 70 and 123, in the scope of revision and has passed adverse orders. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset stated that insofar as the challenge to land survey No. 15/2 is concerned, the same is not being pressed as the land is already declared surplus and possession is also handed over by the petitioner.

(2.) Advocate R. R. Deshpande, appearing for the petitioner states, that in relation to survey No. 9, there was an agreement for sale on 31-12-1969, and accordingly possession was also handed over to the prospective purchaser. He further states that the said agreement was registered on 28-3-1970 and as such the said survey was excluded from the holding of the petitioner by the Surplus Land determination Tribunal (SLDT). He further states that necessary evidence in this respect is adduced before the SLDT. He states that thereafter, the petitioner received a notice of suo motu revision from the office of the respondent No. 3 and the said notice was in relation to survey No. 9 and survey No. 15/2. He states that, the petitioner accordingly appeared before the respondent No. 3 and participated in the hearing and pointed out as to how survey No. 9 could not have been included in his holding. He further states that the proceedings appear to be at the instance of one objector by name Sambha Palikondwar.

(3.) He states that just on say of said Sambha, l/9th share of field survey nos. 70 and 123 was also considered by the Commissioner, and order has been passed for holding fresh enquiry in relation to the survey No. 9 and also 1/9th share from survey Nos. 70 and 123. He states that insofar as survey Nos. 70 and 123 are concerned, the MRT has already decided the said issue finally and in view of the second proviso to section 45, the Commissioner could not have undertaken the said exercise in revision. He further states that as no opportunity to show cause or of hearing was given to the petitioner before hand in relation to these two survey Nos. the mandate of section 45 (2) is violated. He relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court reported in 1993 (1) SCC Pg. 78, C. B. Gautam vs. Union of India, particularly paragraph Nos. 29 and 30 to contend that, if even it is presumed that such opportunity is not expressly provided in the statute, and the steps taken are likely to deprive the petitioner of his property it is required to be read into provision. He also relies upon the judgment of the Apex court reported in 7995 (1) Mh. LJ. Pg. 708, State of Maharashtra vs. Gulab Rao, to contend that as the agreement is registered on 28-3-1970, survey No. 9 was correctly excluded by the SLDT and could not have been included in the holding of the petitioner. He therefore, contends that the revisional order shows total non- application of mind and needs to be quashed and set aside.