1 W.P.No.1966/93 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1966 OF 1993. Raosaheb S/o Santaram Mindhe, Age major, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Kamalwadi, Taluka Gevrai, Dist.Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal Gevrai, Taluka Gevrai, Dist. Beed. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.08.2011. 2 W.P.No.1966/93 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The SLDT conducted an inquiry in respect of the holding of the land of the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Government through Commissioner exercised powers U/s 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 and the matter was remitted to the SLDT. The SLDT thereafter vide its judgment and order dated 17.7.1984 held the petitioner to be surplus land holder to the extent of 4 acres. The Commissioner again on 5.1.1988, invoking the suo-motu revisional powers thereafter vide order dated 30.12.1992 remitted the matter back to the SLDT for reinquiry. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the revisional powers were exhausted by the State Government U/s 45(2) of the Act, then the Commissioner does not 3 W.P.No.1966/93 have jurisdiction to again exercise the revisional powers for the second time. The learned counsel further contends that the SLDT had decided the surplus land holding vide its order dated 17.7.1984. The Commissioner did not apply his mind within a period of three years as contemplated U/s 45 of the Act and as such could not have exercised the powers after the lapse of three years as is held by 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. 4. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, learned Addl.Govt. Pleader supports the order passed by the Commissioner and contends that there is nothing in the statute prohibiting the Commissioner to exercise the suo-motu powers after he is satisfied that the SLDT has wrongly decided the proceedings. 5. The issue that the Commissioner has to apply his mind within a period of three years of the order of SLDT is no longer res-integra in 4 W.P.No.1966/93 view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of "Manohar Ramchandra Manapure and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another" referred supra. In the present petition, the judgment was delivered by the SLDT on 17.7.1984 and the matter was opened by the Commissioner exercising its powers U/s 45(2) of the Act for the second time on 5.1.1988 and the order remitting the matter was passed on 30.12.1992. 6. In view of the above, the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to invoke its revisional powers after three years, apart from the fact that he had already exhausted his revisional powers earlier. 7. In view of the above,the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notice and the order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp196693 5 W.P.No.1966/93