ORAL JUDGMENT:

This petition takes exception to the notice issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad bearing No. 78/ICH-R/332 dated 11th August, 1992.

2. The petitioner is resident of Parbhani, Tq. Parbhani. She is the legal representative of land holder Sunderrao Rangrao Deshmukh, who died on 31.01.1989. The husband of the petitioner filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961. The S. L. D. T. after going though the relevant record came to the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner is a surplus land land holder to the extent of 3 Acres 7 Gunthas from survey No. 1999 situated at Parbhani in File No. 75/PBN/622 vide judgment and order dated 31.12.1975. The possession of the land is given to whom that has been allotted by the competent authority as per the provisions of law.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the Additional Commissioner/respondent No. 2 by exercising powers U/Sec. 45(2) of the Ceiling Act reopened the enquiry i. e. initiated a suo moto proceeding in the year 1992. The petitioner submitted that, the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction or powers to start or reopen the suo moto enquiry under Sec. 45(2) of the Ceiling Act after the period of 3 years from the date of judgment and order passed by the S. L. D. T. The Additional Commissioner must apply his mind within a period of 3 years by summoning the land holder and to start the enquiry. The commissioner must complete the enquiry within a period of 3 years from the date of the order passed by the S. L. D. T. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the Additional Commissioner has not called the record of the S. L. D. T. within a period of 3 years. The Additional Commissioner has issued the notice of suo moto enquiry for the first time after 17 years i. e. on 11.08.1992, before this the petitioner has never received any kind of notice or intimation from the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this writ petition may be allowed and notice dated 11.08.1992 may be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand the learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that, the notice is rightly issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad U/Sec. 45(2) of the said Act. Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of any merits and same may be dismissed.

5. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted position that the S. L. D. T. passed the order on 31.12.1975 thereby the husband of the petitioner was declared surplus land holder. The possession of the land is also handed over to whom that land has been allotted. It is also admitted position that the notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner on 11.08.1992. Therefore, said notice for suo moto enquiry was after the period of about 17 years from the date of order passed by the S. L. D. T. There also appears to be non application of mind on the part of the authority. It further appears that, documents and facts of the case are not properly seen by the Additional Commissioner before issuing notice for suo moto enquiry. Therefore, in my opinion, since the notice issued by the Additional Commissioner on 11.08.1992 was beyond the statutory period prescribed U/Sec. 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, the said notice deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. This Court had occasion to interpret provisions of Section 45(2) of the Said Act in following decisions :

In the case of Manohar Ramchandra Manapure & Others V/s. State of Maharashtra & Another, 1989 Mh.L.J.1011, the Full Bench of this Court held that the proviso to section 45 (2) of the Maharashtra Agriculture Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, restricts the exercise of jurisdiction under section 45(2) to those cases where the record is called for within the period of 3 years from the date of declaration under section 21. Th