2009 (9) TMI 932 - SC - Indian Laws

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?

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 regarding the exercise of revisional power without a prescribed time limit.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around the interpretation of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, specifically focusing on the exercise of revisional power without a prescribed time limit. The central issue addressed in the appeal is whether the power of revision under Section 257 can be exercised at any time, even in the absence of a specified time frame for such exercise. The case involves a land dispute concerning the ownership of a specific portion of land originally belonging to a landlord, which was later resumed by the state due to non-payment of occupancy price. The dispute arises from the subsequent allocation of portions of the land to different individuals, leading to a challenge of the original order passed by the Tahsildar in 1976.

The judgment highlights the sequence of events leading to the legal dispute, starting from the original landlord's failure to pay the occupancy price, resulting in the land being regranted and sold to tenants. The specific portion of land occupied by one of the tenants, Tukaram Sakharam Shevale, was not paid for and was eventually resumed by the state. The subsequent allocation of portions of the land by the Tahsildar in 1976 led to a challenge by the legal heirs of Tukaram Sakharam Shevale in 1993, seeking revision of the order.

The legal analysis delves into the provisions of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, emphasizing the absence of a specified time limit for the exercise of revisional power by the authorities. Drawing upon precedents and legal principles, the judgment cites relevant cases to establish the principle that where a statute does not prescribe a time limit for the exercise of revisional power, it must be done within a reasonable time frame. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining legal certainty and preventing undue delay in the revision process.

Furthermore, the judgment scrutinizes the actions of the Sub-Divisional Officer in invoking revisional power after a significant lapse of time, highlighting that a delay of 17 years in exercising such power is unreasonable. The court deems the invocation of revisional power in this case as an abuse of process, especially considering that the affected party did not challenge the original order during his lifetime. Ultimately, the court allows the appeals against the legal heirs of Tukaram Sakharam Shevale, quashing the impugned orders and directing each party to bear their own costs.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the interpretation of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, emphasizing the need for the exercise of revisional power within a reasonable time frame to uphold legal certainty and prevent undue delay in legal proceedings.