Axayraj Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Presently ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 31 January, 2024
30. As observed above, the impugned proceedings have
not been conducted and the impugned order has not been passed
under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 32A. However, even if
the error committed by the Collector in making reference to
Section 33A is to be ignored, and even if the proceedings were to
be treated as the one initiated and conducted under the
provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 32A, initiation of
proceedings is clearly barred by the outer limit of 10 years. The
outer limit of 10 years provided under sub-section (5) of Section
32A applies from the date of registration of the instrument. In
the present case, the Development Agreement was registered on 7
October 2005 and therefore 6 October 2015 was the last day
before which proceedings under Section 32A(5) could have been
initiated. No doubt in Sheshrao s/o. Balbhim Suryawanshi
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1, the learned Single Judge
1 Writ Petition No.2076 of 1993 decided on 31 January 2012.