The power to prescribe quorum carries with it not only implied powers but also ancillary powers to lay down further procedure in case there is no quorum. However, such ancillary powers cannot be used to override the scheme and spirit of the enabling statute.

Headnote:
SURPLUS LAND DETERMINATION TRIBUNAL - CONSTITUTION - QUORUM - RULE 3(3) OF MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURAL LANDS (CEILING ON HOLDINGS) (DECLARATION AND TAKING POSSESSION OF SURPLUS LAND) AND THE MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURAL LANDS (CEILING ON HOLDINGS) (AMENDMENT) RULES, 1975 - VALIDITY - SECTION 2A OF THE MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURAL LANDS (CEILING ON HOLDINGS) ACT, 1961 - INTERPRETATION - DELEGATED LEGISLATION - SCOPE AND LIMITS - DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS - APPLICABILITY - PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the validity of sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Declaration and Taking Possession of Surplus Land) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Rules, 1975, contending that it was ultra vires the powers conferred upon the State Government by section 2A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The petitioners also challenged the orders passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, contending that the decisions were taken by less than three members, which was in violation of the provisions of section 2A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the first part of sub-rule (3) of rule 3, which laid down the quorum for every meeting of the Tribunal, was valid and within the scope of the rule-making power conferred upon the State Government by section 2A of the Act. However, the Court held that the second part of sub-rule (3), which authorized the Chairman alone to proceed further with the matter and record its decision in the proceedings as a decision of the Tribunal, was ultra vires and outside the scope of the rule-making power conferred upon the State Government. The Court further held that the decisions given by the Chairman alone were without jurisdiction and void.
Issues: 1. Whether sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Declaration and Taking Possession of Surplus Land) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Rules, 1975, was ultra vires the powers conferred upon the State Government by section 2A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961? 2. Whether the orders passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were valid, considering that they were taken by less than three members?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the first part of sub-rule (3) of rule 3, which laid down the quorum for every meeting of the Tribunal, was valid and within the scope of the rule-making power conferred upon the State Government by section 2A of the Act. The Court reasoned that the power to prescribe quorum carries with it not only implied powers but also ancillary powers to lay down further procedure in case there is no quorum. 2. The Court held that the second part of sub-rule (3), which authorized the Chairman alone to proceed further with the matter and record its decision in the proceedings as a decision of the Tribunal, was ultra vires and outside the scope of the rule-making power conferred upon the State Government. The Court reasoned that this provision was inconsistent with the scheme and spirit of section 2A of the Act, which contemplated that a Tribunal of more than one person should adjudicate upon the rights of the land-holders under the Ceiling Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed Special Civil Applications Nos. 3387/76, 455/77, and 4009/76, setting aside the orders passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and remanding the matters back to the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal for deciding them afresh in accordance with law. The Court dismissed Special Civil Applications Nos. 417 of 1977 and 524 of 1977, holding that the decisions in these cases were taken by a Tribunal in a meeting which consisted of the quorum prescribed under the first part of sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of the Rules, which was valid.

JUDGMENT

DHARMADHIKARI J.-In Special Civil Application No. 417 of 1977 the petitioner, who is a tenure holder, had filed a return before the Collector, which was subsequently forwarded to the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal') and after holding necessary enquiry, the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal found that the petitioner was holding 45.27 acres of land as surplus and, therefore, directed delimitation of the said land under section 21 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Being aggrieved by this order, he filed an appeal before The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner raising various contentions before us. According to the petitioner, the authorities below committed an error in counting the land, which was already counted in the holding of his son Umakant in the separate and distinct proceedings, and this double counting is expressly prohibited by sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act. lie further contended that the authorities below also committed an error in holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that his son, namely Umakant, was in possession of the said land as a tenant. A contention was also raised by the petitioner that the authorities below committed an error in coming to the conclusion that his son Purushottam was not major on the appointed date. According to the petitioner, Purushottam was born on 1st of October 1957 and not on 11-10-1957 as held by the authorities below. Apart from these contentions, on merits of the controversy involved in the petition, the petitioner has also challenged the order of the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal on the ground that it was passed by less than three members and, therefore is without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of section 2A of the Act. In this case it is an admitted position that the decision was taken by only two members of the Tribunal including the Chairman and the third member was absent. Therefore according to the petitioner, as sub-rule (3) of rule 3 is ultra vires of the powers conferred upon the State Government by section 2A of the Act, the decision taken by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal viz. by only two members is without jurisdiction, and hence is liable to be quashed and set aside.

2. In other Special Civil Applications, apart from the other questions of fact raised, a similar contention is also raised by the petitioners. In these cases it is an admitted position that only Chairman has decided the matter. It appears from the record that in Special Civil Application No. 3387 of 1976 at the earlier meeting of the Tribunal, besides the Chairman one more member was present but on 27th March 1976 both the members remained absent. The Chairman waited for half an hour and then took up the proceedings and ultimately he alone passed the delimitation order on the same day. In all these petitions the petitioners have also challenged sub-rule (3) of rule 3 on the ground that it is ultra vires of the power conferred upon the rule-making authority, it being outside the scope of rule-making power conferred by the Act. Therefore, the main question which requires consideration in these writ petitions relates to the validity and legality of sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of the rules which have been made under section 46 read with sections 2A and 21 of the Act.

3. For properly appreciating the controversy raised before us, it will be useful to make a detailed reference to section 2A and rule 3 (3) of the Rules. Section 2A of the Act reads as under:

"2A. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, constitute as many Tribunals as may be necessary for such area or areas and for such purpose or purposes of this Act or for such pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document