1 W.P.No.1009/92 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1009 OF 1992. Dwarkadas Gowardhandas Mundada, Age 55 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Shirsum Bk, Tq.Kalamnuri, District Parbhani. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Sheshrao S/o Dhanajirao Jadhav, Age 40 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Yelegaon Hatkar, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist. Parbhani. 3. Dattarao S/o Govindrao Lokhande, Age 44 years, Occ.& R/o as above. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.A.Darak, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Asstt. Govt Pleader for the Respondent No.1. Mr.R.R.Suryawanshi, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1072 OF 1992. 2 W.P.No.1009/92 Dwarkadas Gowardhandas Mundada, Age 55 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Shirsum Bk. Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Parbhani. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Ramchandra Kishanrao Ingale, Age 56 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Shirsum Bk. Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist.Parbhani. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.A.Darak, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. One Gowardhandas had filed his returns. The SLDT vide its order dated 2l.3.1990, declared that the said land holder Gowardhandas holds an area of 55.31 acres as surplus. The notice to exercise the right to retain was issued to the land holder and he exercised the right on 9.4.1990, offering to delimit S.Nos.35,95, 118 and 24. The persons interested in S.Nos.24 and 3 W.P.No.1009/92 95 filed appeals before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide its judgment dated 29.10.1991 allowed the said appeals and remanded the matter to the extent of S.Nos.24 and 95. The said order is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Darak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the present Respondents were the owners of properties and if the Tribunal comes to that conclusion then the Tribunal instead of remanding the matter, should have adjudicated and should have reduced the said land from the holding of the petitioner. There was no need to remand the matter for the said purpose. 4. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the Respondents in W.P.No.1009/1992, submits that the land S.No.24 is the ancestral land of these Respondents and the petitioner or his predecessor did not have any right, title or interest in the said property and the same could not have been included in the holding of the petitioner. 4 W.P.No.1009/92 5. The MRT has remanded the matter as no notice was issued to these Respondents who were interested persons within the meaning of Section 17 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The SLDT is required to consider the extent of interest of the present Respondents. Moreover, the petitioner had not filed any appeal against the order of the SLDT and in view of the same, the matter is remanded back. If the present Respondents are in a position to show that they are the owners of the property then in such circumstances, the SLDT would delete the said properties from the holding of the petitioner. No error is committed by the MRT in remitting the matters. 6. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp100992 5 W.P.No.1009/92