1 W.P.No.1306/92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1306 OF 1992. Shri Ashok S/o Sakharam Shejul, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Kharat Adgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. 3. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal At Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.G.Shelke, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 served - absent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.08.2011. 2 W.P.No.1306/92 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The SLDT vide its judgment and order dated 30.4.1976, in an inquiry U/s 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, declared Mr.Bhagwanrao and his four major brothers as surplus land holders to the extent of 41 acres 20 gunthas. The SLDT further ordered that the same should be delimited from S.No.14, S.No.103 and S.No.123. The land thereafter was delimited and distributed amongst landless persons. Thereafter the Divisional Commissioner exercised suo-motu powers U/s 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 and remanded the matter. After remand the SLDT again revised the holdings of the surplus land which was assailed by the land holder before the MRT, who again remanded it to the SLDT. The SLDT again revised the holding of the surplus land of the land holder, declaring the land holder surplus to the extent of 7 acres 23 gunthas. The said order was assailed by the land holder before the MRT. The MRT thereafter 3 W.P.No.1306/92 reduced the surplus area to 3 acres 5 gunthas. The said judgment is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the land is declared as surplus and distributed amongst landless persons then the Commissioner can not exercise the suo-motu revisional powers U/s 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, in view of second proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 45 of the said Act. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 24/1986 in a case of Dattarao S/o Govindrao Vs. The State of Maharashtra. The learned counsel contends that when Commissioner himself was not empowered to open the case U/s 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, then all further proceedings commenced and decided pursuant to the order of the Commissioner passed U/s 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, would be of no consequences. The same would be illegal and without jurisdiction. According to learned counsel, it would not be open for the 4 W.P.No.1306/92 authorities to again inquire into the surplus land holding. 4. Mr.V.G. Shelke, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader supports the order passed by the MRT and contends that the Tribunal has considered the exact holding of the petitioner after considering the exact holding has declared the petitioner as surplus land holder to the extent of 3 acres 5 gunthas. The said order is perfectly legal on facts and law. 5. Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 reads as under : "45. (1) x x x x (2) The State Government may, suo motu or on an application made to it by the aggrieved person, at any time, call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings under sections 17 to 21 (both inclusive) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any inquiry or proceedings 5 W.P.No.1306/92 (or any part thereof) under those sections and may pass such order thereon as it deems fit, after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall entitle the State Government to call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings of a declaration or part thereof under section 21 in relation to any land, unless an appeal against any such declaration or part thereof has not been filed within the period provided for it, and a period of three years from the date of such declaration or part thereof has not elapsed. Provided further that, no order shall be passed under this section so as to affect any land which is already declared surplus and distributed according to the provisions of the Act : 6 W.P.No.1306/92 Provided also that the revisional jurisdiction under this section shall be exercised only where it is alleged that the land declared [surplus is less than the actual land which could be declared surplus]" 6. It is a trite law that when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner only. When a statute mandates that the State Government can not exercise revisional jurisdiction in respect of the land which is already declared surplus and distributed according to the provisions of the Act, the State Government can not assume jurisdiction. The same would be "Coram non-judice". When the order opening the matter regarding the holding of the petitioner itself was without authority and jurisdiction all further proceedings will be rendered illegal and can not be sustained. 7. Provisions of Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on 7 W.P.No.1306/92 Holdings) Act, 1961 shall have to be read in toto. The proviso to a Section controls the Section. The proviso is an integral part of the Section and same will have to be read in consonance with the main provision. In view of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 45, the State Government could not have opened the case exercising its powers U/s 45 of the Act, in view of the fact that the land holder was declared as surplus and the land declared as surplus was already distributed under the provisions of the Act to the landless persons. As such all the impugned orders passed by the authorities subsequent to the distribution of the surplus land pursuant to the judgment of the SLDT dated 30.4.1976 will have to be declared as illegal. 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C). (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp130692 8 W.P.No.1306/92