Holding

The Commissioner, as empowered by Section 45(2) and (3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961, has suo motu revisional power to reopen and remand the surplus‑land determination even after an appellate order, provided the three‑year limitation and the prohibition against simultaneous exercise while an appeal under Section 21 is pending are respected.

Summary

Rattanlal filed a declaration under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal declared 9 acres 8 guntas of his land surplus, an order affirmed by the Revenue Tribunal after a modification. Later the Additional Commissioner discovered that Rattanlal had suppressed additional lands inherited from his father and, suo motu, issued a show‑cause notice and remitted the case to the primary tribunal for fresh determination. The Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner could not exercise revisional power after the appellate order became final. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that under Section 45 the Commissioner (as a delegate of the State Government) possesses suo motu revisional authority to call for records and direct re‑determination, subject only to the three‑year limitation and the rule that such power cannot be exercised while an appeal under Section 21 is pending. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside, the Commissioner’s order restored, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Commissioner or the State Government is barred from exercising revisional power under Section 45 of the Act after an appeal has been filed and an order passed by the appellate tribunal.
Whether the three‑year limitation for exercising revisional power under Section 45 begins from the date of discovery of fraud or suppression of material facts rather than from the date of the original order.
Whether the Commissioner may, suo motu, remit the matter to the primary authority for fresh determination of surplus land despite a final appellate order.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961s. 12, s. 17, s. 21, s. 45, s. 46, s. 49

Subjects

land ceilingrevisional powersuo motu jurisdictionsurplus land determinationMaharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holdings) Actjurisdiction after appellate orderfraud and suppression of material facts

Judgment

'A STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
RATTANLAL

DECEMBER 11, 1992

B [KULDIP SINGH, V. RAMASWAMI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961: Sec-
tions 12, 17 and 45--Revisional power of State Government exercised by Com-
missioner suo motu-Nature and extent of.
c
The. Respondent filed his declaration under Section 12 of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961. The
Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, after an enquiry, declared that the
Respondent was holding 9 acres and 8 guntas surplus land. On appeal the
Revenue Tribunal at the request of the Respondent and as conceded by the
D State, held that instead of resuming surplus land from Survey No. 11, the
. same be resumed from Survey No. 29 on the Western side. With this
modification the Appellate Authority upheld the order appealed against.

Later it was found from records that the respondent di«l not disclose
E certain lands which he derived on his father's demise, and a show cause
notice was issued to him. The Respondent filed his Written Statement. The
Addi. Commissioner confirmed the order of the Appellate Tribunal as
regards surplus land and remitted the matter to the primary Tribunal for
redetermination and d.elimitation. The Respondent challenged the o.rder
by filing a Writ Petition and the High Court held that once an appeal
F having been preferred by the declarant under the Act, and an order
thereon was made, the Commissioner or the State Government was devoid
of jurisdiction to determine the ceiling area.

· Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the State '
G Government has preferred the present appeal. I
Allowing the appeal, this Court
t
HELD : l. By operation of sub-section (3) of S.45 of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961 Cqpi-
H missioner which includes Addi. Commissioner has been invested with the
536

f
I
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RATTANLAL 537

revisional powers of the State Govt. either suo motu or on an application A
made to it by an aggrieved person to call for the record of any inquiry or
proceedings under Secs. 17 to 21 to satisfy itself of the legality or propriety
of the inquiry or proceedings or any part thereof under the sections and
may pass such order thereon as it deems fit, after giving reasonable
opportunity of being heard. [540-H; 541-A,B]
B
2. The authorities have all the general powers while exercising the
supervisory jurisdiction under Act. They have. also been expressly em-
powered to exercise the power either suo motu or on an application made
to it by an aggrieved person. The exercise of such a power has been
restricted only to the matters relating to an inquiry or proceedings under c
Secs. 17 to 21. It also prescribes 3 years limitation for the exercise of the
revisional power. Before exercising the revisional power the affected party
shall also be given reaso·nable opportunity _of being heard. It would be
open to the State Govt. or its delegate to correct any illegality or im-
propriety committed by the officer or authority. The obvious intendment D
in conferring suo motu power is to prevent supression of the inclusion of
all agricultural lands held or includible in the holding of the declarant
and he/she cannot fall back upon the orders or proceedings as a defence
to plead his/her own fraud or suppression of material facts in his/her
declaration or the designated officer or authority cannot seek shelter
under the orders "'" a part thereof when the offending order was steeped E
with illegality or impropriety. The suppression of material facts, namely,
existence of the undeclared agricultural land had cpme to the knowledge
of the higher authorities after a long lapse of time. The limitation would
start running only from the date of discovery of the fraud or suppression
of material or relevant facts or omission thereof and the order under s. 17
is not a bar to exercise revisional power. [541-E,H; 542-A,B]
F

3.1. The only in-built limitation provided in Sec. 45 is that while an
appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal under s. 21, the revisional
power under s. 45 either suo motu or on an application made by an
aggrieved person could not be entertained or continued simultaneously. G
while the appeal is pending, if it comes to the knowledge of the authorities
that the declarant suppressed material facts or fraud or collusion, those
facts should be placed before the Appellate Tribunal and have it adjudi-
cated properly by it or on remand to the primary authority. If after the
inquiry or proceedings became final, the higher authorities discovered H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A illegality or impropriety committed in the inquiry or proceedings, act,ion
would always be available for initiation by the competent authority l'l!ld
orders could be passed after affording reasonable opportunity to the
land-holder. [542-D-F]

3.2. In the instant-case the Additional Commissioner did not unset-
B tle the appellate order of the revenue tribunal. He discovered from records
suppression of the existence of other lands which were includible in the
return filed by the respondent. Therefore, the Addi. Commissioner in-
itiated the proceedings suo motu, given the respondent reasonable oppor-
tunity of being heard and the respondent submitted his written
c arguments. After hearing him, the order was passed remitting the matter
to the primary authority, to consider th«: case in the light of its finding
whether the lands would be includible in the holding of the respondent. It
. is perfectly within his jurisdiction. [543-A;C].

Madnaodas v. Commissioner, Nagpur Divn._ Nagpur & Ors., [1975] 4
D SCC 815; Rambhau Bapuji Jaibhaye v._ State of Maharashtra & Anr., 1976
Man. Law Journal 443; Baswantrao Appaji Choudhari v. Com~issioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur & Anr., 1977 Man. Law Journal 834 and Vishnu
Kisan Lengre & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1984 Man. Law
Journal, referred to.

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3039 of
1984.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.83 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 1903 of 1980.

S.M. Jha and AS. Bhasme for the Appellant.

S.C. Birla and Subrat Birla for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G K. RAMASWAMY, J. This appeal by special leave arises against
the judgment of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad
in Writ petition No. 1903of1980 dated June 23, 1983. The facts lie in short
compass, are stated hereunder.

The respondent filed his declaration under Sec. 12 of the
H Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 27of1961 as
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RATTANLAL (RAMASWAMY, J.] 539

amended from time to time, for short 'the Act'. The Surplus Land Deter- A
mination Tribunal, Partur, after enquiry under Sec. 17 declared that out of
63 acres 8 guntas of dry lands in Survey Nos. 29, 312 and 11 situated in
Shrishti Village Partur Taluka, Parbhani District, the respondent was hold-
ing 9 acres 8 guntas surplus land. On appeal the Maharashrta Revenue
Tribunal, at the request of the respondent and conceded by the repre-
sentative of the State, held that instead of resuming surplus land from B
Survey No. 11, the same be resumed from Survey No. 29 on the western
side. With that modification the Appellate Authority by its judgment dated
April 13, 1976 upheld the order. The Addi. Commissioner, when' the
records were placed before him, on perusal thereof found that on the
demise of the father of the respondent he and his mother being only heirs,
are entitled to equal shares in 92 acres 29 guntas, in Survey Nos. 91, 337, C
338 and 86 of his father. He found mutations of those lands in the names
of several persons were not genuine and valid. The respondent did not
disclose the lands of his half share in the declaration, and therefore, the
., Addl. Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the respondent on May
22, 1977. The respondent appeared in person and submitted his written
arguments. On consideration thereof for the reasons recorded in his order D
dated June 9, 1980, he remitted the case to the primary Tribunal to examine
the case once over and then determine the surplus land. While upholding
the surplus land of 9 acres 8 guntas as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal,
he directed redetermination and delimitation which was challenged in the
writ petition. The High Court held that once an appeal having been
preferred by the declarant under the Act, and an order thereon was made, E
the Commissioner or the State Govt. is devoid of jurisdiction to determine
the ceiling area. Accordingly it quashed the order in the impugned judg-
ment. Feeling aggrieved, the State Govt. filed the appeal.

The only question that arises for decision is whether the Commis-
sioner or the State Govt. has been devoid of the jurisdiction to direct the F
primary authority to reopen the determination of the surplus area under
Sec. 17. Section 45 of the Act reads thus:

"45. CONTROL. (1) In all matters connected with this act,
the State Govt. shall have the same authority and control G
over the officers authorised under section 27, the Collectors
and the Commissioners acting under this Act, as they do
in the general and revenue administration.

(2) The State Govt. may. suo motu or on an application H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A made to it by the aggrieved persons, at any time, call for the
record of any inquiry or proceedings under sections 17 to ·
21 (both inclusive) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to
the legality or propriety of any inquiry or proceedings (or any
part thereof) under those sections and may pass such order
thereon as it deems fit, after giving the party a reasonable
B opportunity ofbeing heard: .

Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall entitle the
.State Govt. to call for the record of any inquiry or proceed-
ings of a declaration or part thereof under section 21 in
c relation to any land, unless an appeal against any such
declaration or part thereof has not been filed within the
period provided for it, and a period of three years from the
date of such declaration or part thereof has not been filed
within the period provided for it, and a period of three years
from the date of such declaration or part thereof has not
.·
D elapsed:

Provided further that, no order shall be passed u~der this
section so as to affect any land which is already declared
surplus and distributed according to the provisions of this
E Act:

Provided also that the revisional jurisdiction under this
section shall be exercised only where it is alleged that the
land declared surplus is less than the actual land which
could be declared surplus.
F
(3) The State Govt. may subject to such restrictions and
condition as it may impose by notification in the Official
Gazette, delegate to the Commissioner the powers con-
ferred on it by sub-section (2) of this section or under
any other. provisions of this Act except the power to make
G
rules under section 46 or to make an order under section
49." ..
(emphasis supplied)

H By operation of sub-section (3), the Commissioner which includes
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RATTANLAL [RAMASWAMY, J.] 541

Addi. Commissioner has been invested with the revisional powers of the A
State Govt. either suo motu or on an application made to it by an aggrieved
person to call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings under Secs. 17
to 21 (both inclusive); to satisfy itself of the legality or propriety of the
inquiry or proceedings or any part thereof under the sections and may pass
such order thereon as it deems fit, after giving reasonable opportunity of B
' being heard. The exercise of the revisional power is permissible under the
first proviso only if an appeal under s.21 has not been filed and three years
period from the date of the order has not been expired and that the
appellate tribunal had not passed any order thereon, or three years from
the date of the impugned order had not elapsed. In other words the
simultaneous exercise of revisional power was prohibited, while the appel- C
late remedy was still available to the land-holder, or the suo motu revisional
power may not be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date
of the impugned order. The proviso No. 2 says that if the lands already
declared surplus was distributed as per the provisions of the Act, it need
not be interferred with. Where it is alleged that the land declared surplus D
is less than the actual l:ind which could be declared surplus, the revisional
authority is empowered to exercise its power under third proviso. The
authorities have all the general powers while exercising the supervisory
jurisdiction u!-lder the Act. They have also been expressly empowered to
exercise the power either suo motu or on an application made to it by an .
aggrieved person. The exercise of such a power has been restricted only to E
the matters reiating to an inquiry or proceedings under Secs. 17 to 21 (both
inclusive). It also prescribed 3 years limitatio.n for the exercise of the
·revisional power. Before exercising the revisional power the effected party
shall also be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. It would be open
to the State Govt. or its delegate to correct any illegality or impropriety F
committed by the officer. or authority. The obvious intendment in confer-
ring suo motu power is to prevent suppression of the inclusion or' all
agricultural lands held or includable in the holdings of the declarant and·
he/she cannot fall back upon the orders or proceedings as a defence to
plead his/her own fraud or suppression of material facts in his/her decla-
ration or the designated officer or authority cannot seek shelter under the G
orders or a part thereof when the offending order was steeped with
illegality or impropriety. Take a hypothetical illustration that the land-
holder and the officer colluded and in furtherance thereof several lands
were not declared in the declaration. The authorised officer declared him
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A to be within the ceiling limit. The suppression of material facts, namely,·
existence of the'undeclared agricultural land had come to the knowledge
of the higher authorities after a long lapse of time. Should it be that
limitation of three years would be a bar to exercise suo motu power or an
order passed under Secs. 17 to 21 a bar to reopen the case. Obviously the
answers are no. The limitation would start running only from the date of
B discovery of the fraud or suppression of material or relevant facts or
omission thereof and the order under s. 17 is not a bar to exercise revisional
power. Take another illustration that in an inquiry or proceedings a land
which is declared surplus but was excluded. from distribution on fancy
grounds so as to enable the land-holder to retain the surplus land Behami
c etc. Such cases are also liable to reopen under Sec. 45, though the ceiling
order became final. The only inbuilt limitation provided in Sec. 45 is that
while an appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal under s. 21, the
revisional power under-s. 45 either suo motet or on an application made by
an aggrieved person could not be entertained or continued simultaneously.
While the appeal is pending if it comes to the knowledge of the authorities
D
that the declarant suppressed material facts or fraud or collussion, those
facts should be placed before the Appellate Tribunal and have it adjudi-
cated properly by it or on remand to the primary authority. If after the
inquiry or proceedings became final, the higher authorities discovered
illegality or impropriety committed in the inquiry or proceedings, action
E would always be available for initiation by the competent authority and
orders could be passed after reasonable opportunity of being heard given
to the effected land-holder or person. .

It is common knowledge that in the similar Land Reforms statutes
F existing in some states like Andhra Pradesh, the appellate power had been
given to the judicial tribunals (District Judge) and thereafter the revisional.
power under the Act was given to the High Court. In same Act in its
absence the general power under Art. 227 of the Constitution is still
available. Once those orders having been passed and allowed to become
final, unless a case of fraud or misrepresentation or suppression of material
G facts are made QUt, it is not open to the authorities under the Act to fake
recourse to exercise the suo motu revisional power to have the illegality or
propriety crept in the inquiry or proceedings of the authorities corrected.
ln the light. of the scheme of the land reform laws for expedition to
determine surplus lands and distribution of it to the needy poor, the
H jurisdiction of even the civil courts under s. 9 of C.P.C. to entertain suits
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA t'. RATfANLAL [RAMASWAMY, J.] 543

to correct the illegality or impropriety of the proceedings or enquiry under A
the Land Reforms Act stand excluded. In this case the Additional Com-
missioner did not unsettle the appellate order of the revenue tribunal. He
discovered from records suppression of the existence of other lands which
is includible in the return filed by the respondent. Therefore, the Addi.
Commissioner initiated the proc~edings suo motu, given the respondent
reasonable opportunity of being heard and the respondent submitted his B
written arguments. After hearing him, the order was passed remitting the
matter to the primary authority to consider the case in the light of its
finding whether the lands would be indudible in the holding of the respon-
dent. It is perfectly within his jurisdiction, legal and fair order and the High
Court committed manifest error in holding that the Commissioner was c
devoid of jurisdiction to initiate suo motu inquiry after the appellate order
of the revenue Tribunal had become final. The reliance placed on Mad-
naodas v. Commissioner, Nagpur Divn., Naf!JJUr & Ors., [1975] 4 SCC 815
and Rambhau Bapuji Jaibhaye v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 1976 Man.
Law Journal 443 and Baswantrao Appaji Choudhari v. Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur & Anr., 1977 Man. Law Journal 834 and Vishnu
D
Kisan Lengre & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,1984 Man. Law Journal
is of no help as they are not material for deciding the point in issue.
Therefore, we have not adverted to any of the decisions. The decision of
this court also does not touch the point in issue except upholding the
finding that the authorities have suo motu power under Sec. 45. E
This court while admitting the appeal granted interim direction that
it is open to the primary authority to conduct the inquiry, but direc;ted not
to pass final order. If the enquiry had already been completed and is
awaiting decision of this court, it is open to the primary authority to pass
appropriate order thereon according to law. If the inquiry was not con- F
ducted, it is free to conduct the inquiry and pass appropriate orders within
\
a period of three months from the date of receipt ofthis order. The order
of the High Court is set aside and that of the Commissioner is restored.
The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.