9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Gat No. 1157 (Old Survey No. 201/1) 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, predecessor in title of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, one of such tenants, thus, held land admeasuring 1H 66R. The original landlord, N.R. Deshpande, was required to pay occupancy price before July 31, 1965 which he did only to the extent of 3/4 th in respect of lands possessed by three tenants other than Tukaram Sakharam Shevale. The 3/4th portion was, thus, regranted and later on sold to the tenants occupying such portion. As regards 1/4th portion occupied by Tukaram Sakharam Shevale, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as unauthorized and illegal. 7. Upset by the order dated August 16, 1994, the present appellants preferred appeal before the Additional Collector, Kolhapur who agreed with the view of Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji and rejected the appeal on September 16, 1995. 8. The present appellants carried the matter before Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune but without any success. 9. The present appellants then filed writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate side). The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on June 20, 1996. 10. The appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which also came to be rejected on September 1, 2004. 11. Section 257 of the Maharashtra Lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit: Provided that, the State Government or such officer shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any question or right between private persons without having to the parties interested notice to appear and to be heard in support of such order: Provided further that, an Assistant or Deputy Collector shall not himself pass such order in any matter in which a formal inquiry has been held, but shall submit the record with his opinion to the Collector, who shall pass such order thereon as he may deem fit." 13. A close look at the aforesaid provision would show that there is no time limit fixed for exercise of power of revision by the revisional authority. The question is, could it be exercised at any time. While dealing with the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... least within a few months from the date of the permission. In this case the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector on October 12, 1961 i.e more than a year after the order and it seems to us that this order was passed too late." 14. While dealing with the suo-motu revisional power 1 (1969) 2 SCC 187 under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenency and Agricultural Lands Act, 1976, this Court in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim2 held that generally where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of power under statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time. This is what this Court said: "Section 84-C of the Act does not prescribe any time for initiation of the proceeding. But in view of the settled position b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Punjab and Others v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.3 while dealing with the power of revision under Section 21 of 2 (1997) 6 SCC 71 3 (2007) 11 SCC 363 the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, it has been held: "17. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of limitation has been prescribed therefore, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. 18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visional Officer under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse of process in the facts and circumstances of the case assuming that the order of Tehsildar passed on March 30, 1976 is flawed and legally not correct. Pertinently, Tukaram Sakharam Shevale, during his lifetime never challenged the legality and correctness of the order of Tehsildar, Shirol although it was passed on March 30, 1976 and he was alive upto 1990. It is not even in the case of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 that Tukaram was not aware of the order dated March 30, 1976. There is no finding by the Sub-Divisional Officer either that order dated March 30, 1976 was obtained fraudulently. 17. In what we have discussed above, the appeals deserve to be allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
