2015 (2) TMI 1395 - SC - Indian Laws

Deputy Commissioner appointment for land holdings enquiry upheld as administrative action requiring no prior notice

The SC dismissed an appeal challenging state government orders appointing a Deputy Commissioner to conduct administrative enquiry into land holdings. ... Retention of land illegally - Fraud played by the declarants upon the Tehsildar and appellate authorities to get the illegal orders obtained by them to come out from the clutches of the land ceiling provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- The apprehension in the mind of the Appellants that their statutory, fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under the provisions of the Act and Articles 14, 19 and 21 read with 300A of the Constitution of India are infringed at this stage is premature and misconceived. Therefore, the question of issuing notices to them by the State Government before passing the orders in appointing the Deputy Commissioner as an Enquiry Officer to conduct administrative enquiry in relation to the land holdings of the land of the Company, the share holders and the Appellants herein to find out whether the land revenue records of the land of the villages referred to supra are destroyed and fabricated on that basis the declarants have declared that they do not own surplus land, the State Government has not passed effective orders at this stage to take away the valuable rights of the Appellants as claimed by them and therefore, the question of giving opportunity to them at this stage and conducting enquiry before passing the orders is wholly untenable in law, as the orders are only administrative in nature by appointing an officer to enquire into the alleged fraud on the officers, who have decided the declarations of the share holders and sub-lessees favourably on the basis of fabricated revenue records by destroying original records of the land of villages referred to supra, with the deliberate intention to come out from the clutches of the Act. The rights of the Appellants are not affected on the date of passing of the orders by the State Government. The orders impugned in the writ petitions which are affirmed by the High Court, are perfectly legal and valid and therefore, the same do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of this Court Under Article 136 of the Constitution - the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench in affirming the orders of the State Government is not required to be interfered with for one more reason, namely, the High Court, after adverting to certain findings recorded in the criminal cases with regard to the land ceiling and on the alleged fraud against the declarants in getting the orders passed Under Section 21 of the Act, has recorded the findings and reasons holding that the orders of the State Government do not warrant interference as the same are in the interest of public at large. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the State Government's power to appoint an Enquiry Officer under Section 14(4) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.2. Limitation period for exercising suo motu revisional power under Section 45(2) of the Act.3. Allegations of fraud and manipulation of revenue records by the Company and its shareholders.4. Impact of criminal convictions on the land ceiling proceedings.5. Violation of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights of the appellants.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the State Government's Power to Appoint an Enquiry Officer:The appellants contended that the State Government's appointment of an Enquiry Officer under Section 14(4) of the Act to reopen cases related to land holdings was invalid, especially after 12 years of the proceedings having attained finality. The State Government's action was challenged as being outside the jurisdiction and beyond the prescribed limitation period.The Court held that the State Government's order to appoint the Enquiry Officer was justified. The purpose was to conduct an administrative enquiry into the alleged fraud and manipulation of revenue records by the Company and its shareholders. The Court emphasized that the enquiry was in the larger public interest and necessary to examine the correctness of the entries in the relevant revenue records.2. Limitation Period for Exercising Suo Motu Revisional Power:The appellants argued that the State Government could not exercise its suo motu revisional power beyond the three-year limitation period stipulated under Section 45(2) of the Act. They claimed that the orders in the land ceiling proceedings had attained finality and could not be reopened.The Court rejected this contention, stating that the allegations of fraud unravel everything, and there is no limitation for the State Government to exercise its power in such cases. The Court noted that the fraudulent acts by the declarants in fabricating revenue records to avoid the ceiling provisions justified the State Government's action.3. Allegations of Fraud and Manipulation of Revenue Records:The case involved allegations that the Company and its shareholders manipulated revenue records to show 384 sub-leases instead of the actual 125, thereby circumventing the land ceiling provisions. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had investigated these allegations, leading to criminal convictions of some shareholders.The Court found that the allegations of fraud were serious and warranted an enquiry. The fraudulent creation of sub-leases and destruction of original revenue records to retain surplus land was a significant factor in the Court's decision to uphold the State Government's order for an enquiry.4. Impact of Criminal Convictions on the Land Ceiling Proceedings:The criminal convictions of some shareholders for offences related to the manipulation of revenue records were a critical aspect of the case. The State Government had forwarded the judgments of the Special Judge to the District Collector for further action.The Court noted that the criminal convictions and the orders of the Special Judge, confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, provided a basis for the State Government to conduct an enquiry into the land holdings. The Court emphasized that the enquiry was necessary to determine the extent of the fraud and its impact on the land ceiling proceedings.5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Fundamental Rights:The appellants claimed that the State Government's order was passed without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice and their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A of the Constitution.The Court dismissed this claim, stating that the order was administrative in nature and did not affect the appellants' rights at this stage. The enquiry was to determine the correctness of the revenue records, and the appellants would have an opportunity to present their case during the enquiry process.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the State Government's order to appoint an Enquiry Officer to investigate the alleged fraud and manipulation of revenue records by the Company and its shareholders. The Court rejected the appellants' contentions regarding the limitation period, violation of natural justice, and fundamental rights. The Court emphasized the public interest in conducting the enquiry and directed the State Government to expedite the process. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the parties were directed to maintain the status quo regarding the land until the enquiry was completed.