R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners challenge the notice issued by the Deputy collector, Kheda on 4-9-1981 in Tenancy Revision Nos. 183 to 224 and seek direction on the Collector not to take the matters enumerated at Annexure "a", in revision under Sec. 76a of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

( 2 ) IT appears that in an inquiry under Sec. 32-G of the Act, the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. by his order dated 30-12-1971 passed in Tenancy Case No. Govindpura/ 80 in the case of respondent No. 3 held that he was a tenant of the land in dispute. Similar decision was taken in respect of respondents Nos. 4 to 49 and this aspect has not been disputed before this Court. The petitioners have, after the matter was decided by the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. under Sec. 32-G in resepct of respondents nos. 3 to 49 as far back as in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973 suddenly received a notice calling upon them to appear before the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. as the proceedings were taken up in Revision pursuant to the reference made by the State government under Sec. 76-A of the Act in respect of the order which was passed by the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. in the inquiry under Sec. 32-G pertaining to respondents Nos. 3 to 49. A copy of such notice is annexed as Annexure b/1. The notice was sent by the Deputy Collector, Kheda. Admittedly, similar notices were issued in respect of other respondents-tenants. It appears that the petitioners made an application dated 2-7-1981 to the Revenue Department pointing out that the matter could not be taken up in Revision under Sec. 76-A since the period of one year from the date of the order of Mamlatdar and A. L. T. had elapsed. In response to that application dated 2-7-1981, the Government sent a cryptic reply dated 21-10-1981 that there was no reason to review the decision of the Government taken on 26-11-1979 for taking the order of the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. in Revision under Sec. 76-A of the Act.

( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the orders of the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , Matar which are sought to be revised under Sec. 76-A were passed in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973. The petitioners have received the notice to appear before the Deputy Collector only in September, 1981. The provisions of Sec. 76a read as under :"76a. Where no appeal has been filed within the period provided for it the Collector may, suo motu or on a reference made in this behalf by the State Government, at any time, - (a) call for the record of any inquiry or the proceeding of any Mamlatdar or Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal, as the case may be, and (b) pass such order thereon as he deems fit : provided that no such record shall be` called for after the expiry of one year from the date of such order and no order of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given to the interested parties to appear and be heard. "it will be seen that no record can be called for by the Collector after the expiry of one year from the date of the order made by the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the Mamlatdar or Tribunal. The proviso to Sec. 76a would be applicable even in a case where a Reference is made by the State Government requiring the Collector to call for the record and proceedings for th e purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order. The limitation prescribed by the proviso for the exercise of the revisional powers beyond the expiry of one year from the date of the order is clear and explicit and the Collector will have no revisional power to be exercised beyond the period of one year prescribed by the proviso to Sec. 76a. Therefore, the only contention which was raise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document