BASWANTRAO APPAJI CHOUDHARI Vs. COMMISSIONER NAGPUR DIVISION NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A small but important question is raised by the present petition filed by the landholder questioning the exercise of re visional power by the impugned order produced at Annexure C along with the petition, having reference to the provisions of Section 45 (2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The order in question was made on 8-10-1971. Initially the record shows that proceedings under Section 12 of the Act in Revenue Case No. 39/60-A(5)/65-66 commenced before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, as far back as 8-5-1963, After making an inquiry the officer concerned made an order on 17-10-1967 holding therein that the petitioner was entitled to have a ceiling area of 140 acres and would be liable to surrender the surplus area of 4 acres 20 gunthas. That order further directed the landholder to file a retention statement as contemplated by Section 16 of the Act. This adjudication of 17-10-1967, however, did not result into making any declaration under Section 21 of the Act, and it appears from the order-sheets that because the landholder did not file the selection form the matter was kept pending and there are several adjournments sought by the landholder including the one which shows that the records were called by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and returned to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 2-6-1969 on which date the order-sheet shows that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution by the Revenue Tribunal. Again the matter continued to pend and several adjournments were sought by the landholder for filing the selection form which was eventually filed on 16-11-1969. On 30-1-1970 the Sub-Divisional Officer dealing with the file, on the basis of the earlier order, purported to accept the declaration as to the surplus area. It appears that simultaneously he submitted the papers to the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, on 17-12-1970, thereby pointing out the apparent error committed in the earlier order with regard to the members of the family and the entitlement of the landholder to hold land. After receipt of this communication, the papers were perused and on the file of the Commissioner the case was opened on 30-4-1971 stating that it was necessary to take up the matter in revision under Section 45 (2) of the Act. In the order-sheet of that date mention is made with regard to the order dated 30-1-1970. After issue of notice to the landholder and granting an opportunity of being heard on all questions, the Commissioner made the impugned order, holding that there was an error in the first order with regard to the finding about the members of the family of the landholder and the consequent finding as to the entitlement of the holder to the ceiling area. Similarly the finding was recorded that there was no proper inquiry with regard to Section No. 34/1, 2 acres 34 gunthas, which appears to have been treated as uncultivable land. Thus holding, the Commissioner found that the delimitation of 4 acres 20 gunthas was not proper and the said delimitation was set aside and the case remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh inquiry on the points mentioned in the order and the decision of the case according to law.

(3.) It is not in dispute for the purposes of the present petition that a composite declaration contemplated by Section 21 of the Act had not been made when the order dated 17-10-1967 was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer and in fact the proceedings were kept pending till 30-1-1970 on which date the Sub-Divisional Officer purported to accept the retention and delimited the surplus land. Before making that order he submitted a note (to) the Commissioner for exercise of power under Section 45 (2) of the Act. If the last order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer accepting retention and delimiting surplus as on 30-1-1970 is taken as the basis, then it is not in dispute that the proceedings initiated before the Commissioner on 30-4-1971 are not barred by limitation. But what is contended, however, is that on 30-4-1971 the Commissioner could not exercise the power to revise the order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17-10-1967. By the impugned order, it is contended, the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 45 and the conditions of limitation for exercise of revisional power are clearly contravened and the order is rendered infirm in law. It was also submitted that as at one stage the landholder had filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, though the same was not pressed before the Tribunal and was dismissed for want of prosecution, that fact also renders the exercise of revisional power impermissible because of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 45.