1 W.P.No.3614/99 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3614 OF 1999 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 15.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner was declared as surplus land holder by the SLDT to the extent of 27 acres 33 gunthas vide its judgment dated 9.3.1976. Thereafter, the Commissioner exercising suo-motu revisional powers U/s 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, reopened the proceedings in the year 1992 i.e. after a lapse of almost 14 years and remitted the matter back to the SLDT. The SLDT thereafter held the petitioner as surplus land holder to the extent of 61 acres. The petitioner preferred appeal before the MRT, who partly allowed the appeal but still declared the petitioner as a surplus land holder to the extent 2 W.P.No.3614/99 of 50 acres and 7 gunthas. The said order is assailed in the present Petition. 3. The Full Bench of this Court in a case of "Manohar Ramchandra Manapure and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another" reported in 1989 Mh.L.J. 1011, has held that the Commissioner can not exercise its revisional powers U/s 45(2) of the said Act after lapse of three (3) years. There is nothing on record to show that the Commissioner had applied his mind within a period of three (3) years of passing of the judgment of the SLDT. 4. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench in a case of "Manohar Ramchandra Manapure and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another" referred supra, the action of the Commissioner U/s 45(2) the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 can not be sustained, interalia, all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the Commissioner U/s 45(2) of the said Act would stand vitiated. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D). No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.15.09.2011. asp/office/wp3614.99 3 W.P.No.3614/99