STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus RATTANLAL

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 11-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'A 
B 
c 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
RATTANLAL 
DECEMBER 11, 1992 
[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. 
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. 
E 
F 
Later it was found from records that the respondent di«l not disclose 
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 
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. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
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 
' I t 
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] 
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 
B 
c 
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 
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 
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] 
E 
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 b

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