IMPORTANT POINT
Order for conducting administrative enquiry into and appointing Inquiry Officer cannot be challenged.

Headnote:(a) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 – Section 14(4), 21 and 6 r/w Article 162, Constitution of India – Revenue records fabricated for unlawful enrichment by declarants – Verifying correctness of such records imperative – Modus operandi of creating 384 sub-leases – State Government directing Collector to conduct administrative enquiry – Cannot be objected by appellants. (Para 14, 17, 18)
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 142 – State Government order for enquiry – Challenged on ground of appellants not being heard – Request for exercising power under Article 142 – Rejected – It is not a case for exercise of such power. (Para 16)
       (c) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 – Section 45(2) or under Section 14 (4) – Power under – Traceable to Article 162 of Constitution –
       Order of State Government directing enquiry into creation of 384 sub-leases in place of original 125 – No infirmity. (Para 19, 20)
       (2010) 3 SCC 571 – Relied upon
       (d) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 – Section 14(4) – Administrative enquiry – Appointment of inquiry officer – Appellants apprehending infringement of their rights under the Act and Articles 14, 19 and 21 read with 300A of the Constitution of India – Apprehension pre-mature – Question of giving opportunity at this stage – Rejected. (Para 21)
       Facts of the case:
       The Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd., Malinagar, District Solapur purchased 1500-1600 acres of perennially irrigated land at Akluj, Bijwadi, Tambave and Mahalung Villages in Malshiras Taluka. During the said period, the Company took 5000 acres of land on lease from the various land owners in the said villages and thereafter, created sub-leases in favour of its share holders. 125 sub-leases were created and land was allotted to shareholders by the Company between 50-500 acres in favour of each one of the share holders and such holdings of land continued till 26.01.1962, when Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 came into force.
       As per the provisions of the Act, an individual was only allowed to hold 18 acres of irrigated land. The cut-off date for determining land holding under the Act was 04.08.1959. It is the case of the State Government that the share holders of the Company fearing loss of their land holdings in collusion with the revenue authorities manipulated the revenue records of the land involved in the proceedings with a mala fide intention to show that besides the holdings of land by the Company, there were 384 sub-leases of the land altogether. It is its further case that lavanchitthis for the period 1959-1960 to 1961-1962 were destroyed and false revenue records were created to substantiate the holding of 384 sub-leases in respect of the land which was in the name of the Company.
       In the year 1964, the original landowners from whom land was taken by the Company realized the fraud played by the Company and its share holders upon the Revenue authorities of the Act and filed a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) challenging the manipulation of revenue records by the Company of its shares in collusion with the Revenue Officers to investigate into the fabricated records.
       After the aforesaid Act came into force, the land ceiling proceedings of the land holdings of the share holders of the Company and the alleged sub-lessees took place and it was held by the Tahsildar under the Act, that everybody held the land within the ceiling limit and the said decision was appealed and attained finality in the year 1977, as the appeals filed against the orders passed in the land appeals were also dismissed.
       In the year 1974, the ACB obtained permission from the Maharashtra State Government to investigate into the alleged offences punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471, 477A, 120B and 109 of the IPC, which were registered after investigation of the case by the said Bureau against the share holders of the Company and others. The said criminal cases were tried by the Special Judge, Solapur against the accused persons in special case Nos. 2, 5 to 7 of 1975. The accused persons, namely, the share holders were convicted for different offences and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for the period mentioned in the judgment and order of the Special Judge. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Special Judge, the accused persons preferred criminal appeals before the High Court which passed judgments and orders dated 6.2.1985, 2.4.1985, 20.4.1985 and 23.4.1985 respectively dismissing the said appeals. The accused persons preferred special leave petitions which were also dismissed in the year 1985.
       The State Government asked the District Collector to conduct enquiry and determine the surplus land involved in the cases. In view of the aforesaid conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Special Judge and confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court, the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 14(4) of the Act vide order dated 27.9.1991 designated the Asstt. Commissioner, Pune Division as Enquiry Officer to make an enquiry pertaining to the list of bogus land holders.
       Some of the appellants in the connected appeals who are purchasers of the land from the Company’s share holders who were accused and persons who were acquitted in the criminal case, and some of the appellants who were not the accused in the criminal case, had also filed the writ petitions before the High Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the State Government under the aforesaid provisions of the Act appointing the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry pertaining to the list of bogus land holders mentioned in the impugned order.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned order does not warrant interference.
       Result: Appeals dismissed with cost.

JUDGMENT

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. Aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in various Writ Petitions, the appellants have filed these appeals by questioning the correctness of the same by raising certain questions of law and urging various grounds in support of the same and requested this Court for setting aside the same and issue writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 21.10.1986, 23.06.1988, 7.8.1989 and 31.10.1989 passed by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 14(4) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) appointing the Sub Divisional Officer, Pandharpur as Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry in respect of the land holders whose names are mentioned against the land held by them in the said orders. As per the affidavit filed by Shri Shankar Narayan, the Assistant Collector, Pandharpur, by an order dated 27.9.1991, the Government had modified original orders dated 7.8.1989 and 31.10.1989 and in supersession of those orders, the Government has designated the Assistant Commissioner of Land Records, Pune as Enquiry Officer which was subsequently designated the Deputy Commissioner of Pune Division as the Enquiry Officer.

3. For the sake of brevity, the relevant brief resume of facts and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties in C.A. @ SLP(c) No. 9710 of 2007 are stated in this judgment with a view to find out as to whether this Court is required to exercise its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and the orders passed by the Maharashtra State Government impugned in the writ petitions.

The Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd., Malinagar, District Solapur is a Company registered some time in the year 1932-1933 under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1956. The Company purchased 1500-1600 acres of perennially irrigated land at Akluj, Bijwadi, Tambave and Mahalung Villages in Malshiras Taluka. During the said period, the Company took 5000 acres of land on lease from the various land owners in the said villages and thereafter, created sub-leases in favour of its share holders. 125 sub-leases were created and land was allotted to shareholders by the Company between 50-500 acres in favour of each one of the share holders and such holdings of land continued till 26.01.1962, when the said Act came into force. As per the provisions of the Act, an individual was only allowed to hold 18 acres of irrigated land. The cut-off date for determining land holding under the Act was 04.08.1959. It is the case of the State Government that the share holders of the Company fearing loss of their land holdings in collusion with the revenue authorities manipulated the revenue records of the land involved in the proceedings with a mala fide intention to show that besides the holdings of land by the Company, there were 384 sub-leases of the land altogether. It is its further case that lavanchitthis for the period 1959-1960 to 1961-1962 were destroyed and false revenue records were created to substantiate the holding of 384 sub-leases in respect of the land which was in the name of the Company.

4. In the year 1964, the original landowners from whom land was taken by the Company realized the fraud played by the Company and its share holders upon the Revenue authorities of the Act and filed a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) challenging the manipulation of revenue records by the Company of its shares in collusion with the Revenue Officers to investigate into the fabricated records.

After the aforesaid Act came into force, the land ceiling proceedings of the land holdings of the share holders of the Company and the alleged sub-lessees took place and it was held by the Tahsildar under the Act, that everybody held the land within the ceiling limit and the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 120

IMPORTANT POINTOrder for conducting administrative enquiry into and appointing Inquiry Officer cannot be challenged.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Order for conducting administrative enquiry into and appointing Inquiry Officer cannot be challenged.