1 wp 2841.93 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2841 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra .. Petitioner Versus 1. Ankush S/o Rambhaji Pandit, Adult, Occu. : Agril., R/o Daithana, Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed. 2. Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Gevrai, Dist. Beed, through its Chairman, at Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed. 3. Shri D. T. Shirsat, Adult, Occu. : Service, Tahsildar, Gevrai, C/o Establishment Section, Office of the Commissioner, Aurangabad. 4. Shri. M. K. Dhaken, Adult, Occu. : Agril. & Member of S. L. D. T., Gevrai, presently R/o Ukkad Pimpri, Tq. Gevrai, 5. Vasantrao Shikhre, Adult, Agril. & Member of SLDT, Gevrai, R/o Chaklamba, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. .. Respondents 2 wp 2841.93 Shri D. R. Kale, A.P.P. for the Petitioner/State. Shri N. N. Kakade, Advocate h/f Shri S. V. Kharde, Advcoate for the Respondent No. 1. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 served. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24th August, 1984 in Case No. 76/LC/841, which is placed at Exhibit-C of this petition. It is not necessary to state the background facts for filing writ petition which are extensively stated in the petition. Suffice it to say that, the judgment and order impugned in this petition is passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Gevrai. 2. It is not in dispute that the order of the S. L. D. T. can be gone into by the Additional Commissioner in suo moto enquiry as provided under Sub Section 2 of Section 45 of the Ceiling Act or same can be assailed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. In that view of the matter, filing of this writ petition is wholly misconceived. This Court has limitation to re-appreciate the evidence and proper recourse would have been either to assail 3 wp 2841.93 before the M. R. T. or Additional Commissioner should have taken suo moto revision as permissible under the provisions of Sub Section 2 of Section 45 of the Ceiling Act. 3. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, such writ petition cannot be entertained. However it is left open to the petitioner/state to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that the concerned forum will take into consideration the pendency of this writ petition from 1984 till date, while considering the prayer for condonation of delay. It is needless to mention that the concerned forum will look into the provisions of the Limitation Act. The writ petition stands dismissed. The Rule stands discharged. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/March. 11