Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
B.H. Marlapalle, J.
Udhav Uttam Patil.... Petitioner.
Versus
Daga Holkya Bhil, Since
deceased through L.R. others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 4489 of 1996 and W.P. No. 1622 of 1997, decided on 9-3-2001.
Advocates appeared :
P.M. Shah, Sr.C. in W.P. No. 4489/96, for the petitioner.
S.S. Shete, in W.P. No. 4489/96, for respondent 1(a) and 3.
V.D. Sapkal, A.G.P., in W.P. No. 4489/96, for the respondent No. 2.
R.B. Raghuwanshi, in W.P. 1622/97, for the petitioner.
P.M. Shinde, A.G.P., in W.P. 1622/97, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
S.S. Shete, in W.P. 1622/97, for the respondent Nos. 4(a) and (b).
Sections 3 and 7-Limitation Act, 1963, Section 3-"Reasonable time" for revision-Interpretation of -Order of Collector for revision-Suo motu opening of case by Additional Commissioner after 20 years from concluded order of Commissioner -Contention-Collector can pass such order within 30 years from Collectors Order-Additional Commissioner can act within a reasonable time that is 2-3 years or maximum 5-6 years-In same cases it can be 30 years also-Wider meaning to be given in object of welfare of tribals-Act passed in 1974 itself covered cases of last 17 years from 1957-Hence if revision is under taken within 30 years of commencement of Act it would be within a reasonable period-The term "reasonable period" will have to be interpreted to give full meaning to the intentions behind the Act. The welfare of the tribal and the steps to be taken by the State Government for achieving such welfare are of paramount importance while framing the Act and, therefore, when the provisions of the Act are put to use, they must be given a wider meaning and any restrictive interpretations would frustrate the basic policy of distributive justice as embodied in the Act. The Act was framed in the year 1974 and it was brought into force with effect from 1st November, 1975. If an authority is vested with the power to take an action, without providing for any limitation, even in such case it is the duty of the authority to take an action within a reasonable time and if the action is taken after unreasonable time or belatedly the same is vitiated in law. The word "at any time" has also been incorporated therein and it is intended that such powers to be exercised should not be hit by a period of general limitations. The members of the Scheduled Tribes which suffered the inherent disadvantages of illiteracy, ignorance and oppression for generations require special care and attention to be given by a welfare State like ours for their enlistment and the Act is intended to be a measure to achieve this objective. The revision power has been exercised within a reasonable period and it cannot suffer by inordinate delay. In this regard Court relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India and others, 1998 (2) SCC 242, wherein it was held that for exercising powers under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds Act even after a period of 15 years it cannot be presumed that the authorities had dropped the proceedings and such delay would not vitiate the proceedings initiated by the competent authority. In the instant cast, though the revision powers are being sought to be exercised after about twenty years from the date of closing the proceedings by the Collector, however, the powers are being exercising within a period of less than thirty years from 1st November, 1975 and hence it ought to be held that the powers are being exercised within a reasonable period.
2. This group of petitions raises a common challenge regarding the right of the Divisional Commissioner to reopen the inquiry already concluded by the Collector under the provisions of section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (the Act for, short), by invoking the powers under section 7 of the said Act. By the said impugned notices dated 13th August, 1996 the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division at Nasik has proposed a suo motu revision of the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector after about twenty years. It is contended that the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector had become final and the impugned show cause notices proposing to reopen the settled position are illegal and such powers cannot be allowed to be invoked after a gap of about twenty years or after a reasonably long period.
The relevant provisions of sections 3, 4 and 7 of the said Act read, as under :---
"3.(1) Where due to transfer -
(a) the land of a Tribal-transferor is held by a non-Tribal-transferee, or
(b) the land acquired in exchange by a Tribal-transferor is less in value than the value of the land given in exchange,
and the land so transferred is in possession of the non-Tribal-transferee, and has not been put to any non-agricultural use on or before the 6th day of July 1974, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or authority, the Collector either suo motu at any time, or on the application of a Tribal transferor made within thirty years from the commencement of this Act shall, after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, direct that -
(i) the lands of the Tribal tranferor and non-Tribal transferee so exchanged shall be restored to each other; and the Tribal-transferor, or as the case may be, the non-Tribal transferee shall pay the difference in value of improvements as determined under Clause (a) of sub-section (4), or
(ii) the land transferred otherwise than by exchange be taken from the possession of the non-Tribal transferee, and restored to the Tribal transferor, free from all encumbrances, and the Tribal transferor shall pay such transferee and other persons claiming encumbrances the amount determined under Clause (b) of sub-section (4) :
Provided that, where land is transferred by a Tribal transferor in favour of non-Tribal transferee before the 6th day of July, 1974, after such transferee was rendered landless by reason of acquisition of his land for a public purpose, then only half the land so transferred shall be restored to the Tribal transferor.
Explanation. -Where the lands of a Tribal and non-Tribal are purported to have been transferred to each other, otherwise than by exchange, but the date on which the instructions for such transfers are registered is the same or, where such instruments are registered on different dates, but the interval between the dates of registration is thirty days or less, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such instruments, for the purposes of this section, such transfers shall be deemed to be by way of exchange.
4. Where any land of a Tribal is, at any time on or after the 1st day of April 1957 and before the 6th day of July 1974, purchased or deemed to have been purchased or acquired under or in accordance with the provisions of the relevant tenancy law by a non-Tribal transferee or where any acquisition has been regularised on payment of penalty under such law and such land is in possession of a non-Tribal transferee and has not been put to any non-agricultural use on or before the 6th day of July 1974, then the Collector shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, either suo motu at any time or on an application by the Tribal made within thirty years from the commenceme
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
