Allowed

Dhananjay Gopinathrao Choudhary. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Bombay HC5 May 2012WP/876/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a revisional notice issued 17 years after the Tribunal's order, arguing it violated the three-year limitation. The court held that issuing notice beyond the limitation period deprived the authority of jurisdiction and quashed the notice.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued by the Additional Commissioner under section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act was quashed and set aside, and proceedings were quashed.

Dhananjay Gopinathrao Choudhary. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 876 OF 1993

¶4

Dhananjai s/o Gopinathrao Chaudhari age 39 years, occ. agriculture r/o Dhamangaon, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna as well as ‘Mahur’ Adalat Road, Aurangabad .. PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

The Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶8

The Additional Commissioner Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. N.G. Kale, advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Natu, advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for the State.

¶10

=====

¶11

CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 5th May, 2012.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

Petitioner was called upon by issuing notice under section 17(1) & (2)

¶14

of the Maharashtra Agriculture Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, to

¶15

present returns for the purpose of determination of agricultural holdings.

¶16

¶17

Petitioner furnished the returns and due enquiry was conducted thereafter

¶18

by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Partur. The Surplus Land

¶19

Determination Tribunal decided the matter on 31-3-1976 and directed delimitation of about 46 acres of land out of the holding possessed by the petitioner. Decision rendered by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal was sought to be reviewed in exercise of powers under section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agriculture Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, by the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner on 25-2-1993 directed to take up the matter in review on the grounds stated in the notice. Petitioner is challenging the notice issued by the Additional Commissioner on 25-2-1993 on the ground that the same has been issued belatedly and the application of mind to the record by the revisional authority is beyond three years of determination by the Surplus

¶20

Land Determination Tribunal.

¶21

Petitioner places reliance on the judgment in the matter of Manohar

¶22

Ramchanra Manapure and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another

¶23

reported in 1989 Mh.L.J. 1011. The Full Bench of this Court has dealt with the

¶24

issued and observed in the judgment thus :

¶25

. The proviso to section 45(2) of the Maharashtra

¶26

¶27

Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act restricts the exercise of jurisdiction under section 45(2) to those cases where the record is called for within the period of 3 years from the date of declaration under section 21. The starting point of limitation as prescribed in the proviso to subsection (2) of section 45 is the declaration or part thereof under section 21 of the Act. The meaning assigned to word “call” in Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 2 and Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary is “to summon”. It contemplates some action or application of mind on the part of the State Government or its delegate before calling for the record. It cannot be equated with the mechanical, clerical or ministerial act of calling for the records of all the proceedings irrespective of the fact whether they were required or not for the purpose specified in the section. The State Government is not appointed as roving commission, but is expected to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial powers. The object behind prescribing of limitation for calling for the record is not to upset the settled position at the very late stage. Calling for the record will require some positive act on the part of the authority but it must ultimately depend upon the facts of each case as to when the record was actually called for by the concerned authority. The proviso cannot be construed so as to include in its import all the proceedings namely right from the initiation to the ultimate order. It is after applying his mind that the revisional authority will have to call for the record of the enquiry or proceedings after conscious application of mind to the facts and circumstances of each case. Where admittedly the necessary application of mind on the part of the Commissioner was much beyond the period of 3 years of the order impugned, it will have to be held that the records were not called within the period of 3 years. In such a case the Commissioner will have no power to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.

¶28

In the instant matter, admittedly, the Surplus Land Determination

¶29

¶30

Tribunal had determined holding of petitioner and declared him surplus to

¶31

the extent of 46 acres. Order is passed on 31-3-1976 by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, whereas notice under section 45(2) of the Act has been issued by the revisional authority after about 17 years of passing of the

¶32

order. Application of mind by the revisional authority is surely beyond the

¶33

period of three years which is not permissible. Notice issued by the revisional authority, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Writ petition is therefore allowed and notice issued by the Additional Commissioner on 25-2-1993 in exercise of powers under section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act is quashed and set aside. Consequently, proceedings initiated by the revisional authority are also quashed. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In

¶34

the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed

¶36

of.

¶37

( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE

¶38

dyb

Dhananjay Gopinathrao Choudhary. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Gopinathrao Choudhary. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidyadhar Jalba Patil and Others. Vs Venkatrao Yashwantrao and Others.

The Manager, John Wilson Education Society,D.G.H. Vs Smt.Dhanika Uttamrao Patole and Others.

Laxmi Chemicals Ahemadnagar. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Ramkrishna Pandu Patil. Vs Kalabai @ Kamalabai Sadashiv Bharambe.

Ratilal Ramadas Patil. Vs M.S.R.T.C.,Dhule.

Bhaskar Bajirao Sonawane. Vs the State of Mah. and Others.