MANOHAR RAMCHANDRA MANAPURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur acting under section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (as unamended) (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Ceiling Act"). It appears that a preliminary objection was raised before the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur regarding the bar of limitation in initiating revisional proceedings under section 45(2) proviso of the Ceiling Act. It was contended that the proceedings were initiated or the records were called for exercising the revisional jurisdiction under section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act after the expiry of period of three years from the date of the declaration under section 21(2) of the Ceiling Act. Said contention was negatived by the learned Commissioner. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view in (Kisan Gangaram v. Additional Commissioner)1, 1977 U.C.R. (Bom.) 313 that all that section 45(2) requires is that the Commissioner to whom the powers of the State Government under the proviso to that section are delegated must call for the record of any enquiry or proceedings of a declaration or part thereof under section 21 before the expiry of period of three years from the date of such declaration or part thereof. The proviso to section 45(2) does not require the Commissioner to pass an order within three years from the date of declaration. Once the papers were called within the period of three years, there is nothing in the proviso to prevent the Commissioner from passing an order on the perusal of the papers thereafter.

(2.) However, when the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge (Dhabe, J.), the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the later decision of this Court in (Pedre Januario Carles v. Union of India)2, 1984 Mh.L.J. 132 in which a view is taken that the revisional authority must complete the proceedings and quash the order within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of the impugned order. Though the said decision was based on the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, the learned Single Judge found that the provisions were in pari materia or analogous to section 45(2) of the old Ceiling Act except for the difference of the time limit prescribed. Since there was apparent conflict between the views taken in these two decisions, the learned Judge thought it fit that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench and this is how this writ petition is placed before us. Since this was the only question raised in the petition, the learned Judge found that the whole petition can be disposed of by the Full Bench.

(3.) Section 45 of the Ceiling Act with which we are concerned in this petition reads as under :