JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. The petitioners herein are wife and husband respectively. The return was filed by the petitioners under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, “Act of 1976”) before the Additional Collector and Competent Authority. In the return, the petitioners showed that they were owners of plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 41 and 42 out of survey Nos. 968/969, Bhamburda, Shivajinagar, Pune but mentioned that plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 41 and 42 were leased out to one Mr. Prabhakar Purshottam Joshi on 23-1-1975 by way of registered lease deed and as such they were holding the land comprising of plot Nos. 34 and 35 only. The Competent Authority, Pune initially issued a draft statement on 12-1-1985 under Section 8(3) of the Act of 1976 declaring therein that the petitioners hold vacant land admeasuring 1532.40 sq. mts. and since they are entitled to retain 1000 sq.mts. of the vacant land, remaining land of 532.40 sq.mts. was liable to be surrendered. The petitioners filed written objections to the draft statement. Thereafter, the Competent Authority on 16-1-1985 after taking into consideration petitioners objections to draft statement issued final statement thereby declaring that petitioners were holding only 26 sq.mts. in excess out of vacant land comprising of plot Nos. 34 and 35. It may be noted here that the petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 2007 of 1980 against Prabhakar Purshottam Joshi in the year 1980 for possession of the demised lands being plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 41 and 42. The petitioners suit was decreed in the year 1985. The lessee Prabhakar Purshottam Joshi was directed to hand over possession of demised land to the petitioners. The lessee preferred appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Court and thereafter in the month of October 1986, the petitioners acquired possession of plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 41 and 42 from the lessee. Upon acquisition of the aforesaid land from the lessee, the petitioners on 11-4-1987 made application under Section 15 before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority passed an order on 19-7-1988 purporting to be under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1976 declaring that the petitioners are entitled to retain 1000 sq.mts of land out of freshly acquired land. The Competent Authority held that the remaining land of 535.40 sq. mts. of the acquired land was surplus.
2. To complete the narration of facts it may be noted here that after the decree for possession of the land was passed in favour of the petitioners in the Suit filed against the lessee, the petitioners on 27-3-1986 issued notice under Section 26 of the Act of 1976 for sale of 1000 sq. mts. of the land comprising of plots 34 and 35 which was already in possession of the petitioners and the petitioners executed two sale deeds in favour of one Sunil R. Karwandikar on 28-7-1986. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Act of 1976, issued notice to the petitioners on 16-10-1990 to show cause why the order dated 19-7-1988 be not set aside and revised. By order dated 7-9-1991 the State Government took into account the position that the Competent Authority ought to have taken into consideration the extent of land admeasuring 100 sq. mts. permitted to be retained by the petitioners within the ceiling limit as per the order dated 16-14985 which was sold by the petitioners after getting permission under Section 26 of the Act and, accordingly, remanded the matter back to the Competent Authority for fresh determination in accordance with law. This order passed by the State Government on 7-9-1991 is impugned in the present writ petition.
3. Mr. S. V. Pitre, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that after giving notice under Section 26 of the Act of 1976 the petitioners sold plot Nos. 34 and 35 which was allowed to be retained by the petitioners by the Competent Authority as per final statement issued on 16-01-1985. Once the land comprising of plot Nos. 34 and 35 was sold by the petitioners after following the procedure prescribed under Section 26, the Competent Authority was justified in excluding the said land while determining the holding afresh after acquisition of land by the petitioners pursuant to the decree passed by Civil Court in the Suit filed against lessee and thus there was no justifiable reason for the State Government to exercise its suo motu revisional power against the order dated 12-01-1988 passed by the Competent Authority.
4. We are afraid, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that the relevant date for the purpose of calculating the extent of vacant land held by a person is 17-02-1975 under the Urban Land Ceiling Act which came into force on 17-02-1976. Even if it be assumed that initially when the final statement and notification was issued on 16-1-1985 by the Competent Authority, the land comprising of plots 25, 26, 27, 41 and 42 leased out to Mr. Prabhakar Purshottam Joshi vide registered lease deed dated 23-1-1975 was validly excluded, once the petitioners acquired the leased land back from the lessee in the year 1986, the petitioners were required to file return under Section 15 of the Act of 1976 within the time prescribed therein. It is not disputed that the petitioners in fact submitted return under Section 15 within three months from the date of acquisition of land comprising of plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 41 and 42 from the then lessee. Upon acquisition of the aforesaid land, obviously, the petitioners holding was needed to be determined as per the ceiling limit prescribed in law. The land admeasuring 1000 sq. mts. out of survey Nos. 34 and 35 which was permitted to be retained by the petitioners as per final statement issued by the Competent Authority, the said land could not have been excluded merely because the said land was sold by the petitioners in the year 1986 after giving notice under Section 26 of the Act of 1976. Under the scheme of the Act of 1976, a person cannot hold the land exceeding the ceiling limit prescribed thereunder at any point of time on and from the appointed date. The petitioners, thus, on and from 17-02-1975 can only hold the land to the extent of 1000 sq. mts. which is the ceiling limit prescribed for “B” class cities. The transfer or sale of land by the petitioners after the appointed date cannot be recognized and such land cannot be excluded even if such sale was effected after following the procedure under Section 26 of the Act of 1976. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, it would result in permitting the petitioners to hold the land to an extent of 2000 sq. mts. in “B” class city after the appointed date which is not permissible and would defeat the very purpose and objective of the Act of 1976. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides, “the provisions of Sections 6 to 14 (both inclusive) shall, so far as may be, apply to the statement filed under this section and to the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit.” This provision would indicate clearly that the vacant land held by the person in excess of ceiling limit has to be considered along with the acquisition of land on or after the commencement of the Act. In view of this legal position, the State Government cannot be said to have erred when it observed in the impugned order thus :
“(2) While issuing second *(4) order bearing No. 698 – G on 19-7-1988 Competent Authority, Pune considered the land which was declared excess vide 8(4) order dt. 16-1-1985 and the lands bearing plots No. 25, 26 and 27, Bhamburda which had come back to the lesser by virtue of court decree. However, Competent Authority Pune failed to take into consideration the extent of land, admeasuring 1,000 sq.mts. permitted to be retained with the landholder within the ceiling limit as per 8(4) order dt. 16-1-1985 and which was sold by obtaining permission under Section 26 of the Act. Competent Authority Pune should have taken into account the land which was allowed to be retained and had been sold by the landholder on the basis of its having been declared retainable under Section 4(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.”
5. In our considered view, the view taken by the State Government is in conformity with the legal provisions contained in the Act of 1976. The State Government also cannot be said to have exercised its power of revision under Section 34 belatedly or beyond reasonable time. By notice dated 16-10-1990 the State Government sought to revise the order dated 19-7-1988 i.e. almost within 15 months of the passing of the order of the Competent Authority Section 34 of the Act of 1976 does not provide any time limit for invocation of revisional power by the State Government and obviously, therefore, such power has to be exercised within reasonable time. This Court in The Automotive Research Association of India and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 604 = 2002 (4) All MR 423 observed that exercise of power by the State Government under Section 34 within three years from the date of the order can always be termed as reasonable.
6. For all these reasons, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
7. Rule is discharged. No costs.
8. The Competent Authority may proceed for reconsideration of the matter as directed by the State Government in its order dated 7-9-1991, but the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the disputed land for a period of two months.
Certified copy expedited.