SHRI SANTOSHKUMAR SHIVGONDA PATIL & ORS. versus SHRI BALASAHEB TUKARAM SHEVALE & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 1173 · Decided: 02-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1173 
SHRI SANTOSHKUMAR SHIVGONDA PATIL & ORS. 
A 
-+· 
v. 
-
SHRI BALASAHEB TUKARAM SHEVALE & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6017 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 
B 
ll( 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
+ 
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - s.257 - Power 
"ti 
of revision under -Whether can be exercised at anytime, 
although no time has been prescribed for exercise of such c 
power - Held: If a statute does not prescribe the time limit for 
-< 
exercise of revisions/ power, it does not mean that such power 
~ 
can be exercised anytime - Reasonable period, within which 
power of revision may be exercised, would be 3 years under 
-* 
s.257 subject to exceptional circumstances - On facts, D 
exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years was not 
within reasonable time - It was plain abuse of the process . 
.... 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeals was whether the power of revision in E 
Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 
1966 can be exercised at any time, although no time has 
been prescribed for exercise of said power . 
• 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD:1.1. If a statute does not prescribe the time 
limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean 
that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it 
should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so 
\ 
. 
because the law does not expect a settled thing to be G 
unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature 
i 
does not provide for any length of time within which the 
~-
power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo 
motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power 
1173 
H 
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A within reasonable time is inherent therein. Ordinarily, the 
+ 
reasonable period within which power of revision may be 
. 
exercised would be three years under Section 257 of the 
\ 
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to 
the exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely 
! --
B exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years as 
in the present case is not within reasonable time. [Para 
16] (1181-A-D] 
-f 
1.2. Invocation of revisional power by the Sub-
,.,,_
c Divisional Officer under Section 257 of the Maharashtra 
Land Revenue Code was plainly an abuse of process in 
the facts and circumstances of the case assuming that 
the order of Tehsildar passed on March 30, 1976. was 
flawed and legally not correct. [Para 16] [1181-D-E] 
D 
State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 
,.__ 
187; Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim 
(1997) 6 SCC 71; State of Punjab and Others v. Bhatinda 
District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 
' 
363, relied on. 
E 
I 
' 
Case Law Reference: 
j 
(1969) 2 sec 187 
relied on 
Para 13 
-t 
(1997) 6 sec 11 
relied on 
Para 14 
F 
(2001) 11 sec 363 
relied on 
Para 15 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6017 of 2009. 
G 
From the Judgment & Order dated 1.9.2004 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Letters Patent Appeal No. 
129 of 1996 in Writ Petition No. 1962 of 1996. 
.... 
,_, ... , 
' 
WITH 
l ,,. 
H C.A. No. 6018 of 2009. 
~ 
t ' 
-
SANTOSHKUMAR SHIVGONDA PATIL & ORS. v. 1175 
BALASAHEB TUKARAM SHEVALE 
Dr. Rajeev B. Masodkar, Anil K. Jha for the Appellant 
A 
1' 
Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Respondent. 
-. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
., 
R.M. LODHA, J. 
8 
1. Delay condoned in SLP (c) No 22662/09 CC 2563. 
t-
2. Leave granted in both matters. 
... 
3. The short question that arises for consideration in this .C 
appeal by special leave is whether power of revision in Section 
257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 can be 
exercised at any time although no time has been prescribed 
for exercise of such power. 
4. Takawade Gat No. 1157 (Old Survey No. 201/1) D 
~ 
admeasuring 6H65R originally belonged to one N.R. 
Deshpande. The land was an inam land which was resumed 
on August 1, 1955. On the date of resumption, there were four 
tenants holding 1/4th share each. Tukaram Sakharam Shevale, E 
predecessor in title of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, one of such 
tenants, thus, held land admeasuring 1 H 66R. The original 
landlord, N.R. Deshpande, was required to pay occupancy price 
1-
before July 31, 1965 which he did only to the extent of 3/4th in 
respect of lands possessed by three tenants other than 
.. 
Tukaram Sakharam Shevale. The 3/4th portion was, thus, F 
regrante

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.