1 W.P.No.924/92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.924 OF 1992. Digambar S/o Ramrao Kulkarni, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anandgaon, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist.Beed, died through L.Rs. 1-A) Sushila W/o Digambar Kulkarni, Age major, Occ.household, R/o Anandgaon, Tq. Majalgaon. 1-B) Makrand S/o Digambar Kulkarni, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anandgaon, Tq.Majalgaon. 1-C) Arvind S/o Digambar Kulkarni, 1-D) Milind S/o Digambar Kulkarni, Both Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o as above. 1-E) Saroj W/o Jaiwant Kulkarni, Age major, Occ.Household, R/o Nanded. 1-F) Savita W/o Pramodrao Deshpande, Age major, Occ.Household, R/o Nanded. 1-G) Sunita W/o Kumarrao Joshi, Age major, Occ.and R/o as above. ... Petitioners. Versus 2 W.P.No.924/92 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.K.M.Babhulgaonkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.R.P. Phatke, Addl. Govt.Pleader for the Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. That the inquiry was conducted by the SLDT regarding the holding of the petitioners' land. The SLDT vide its judgment and order dated 7.1.1976, declared that the petitioner holds 2 acres 4 gunthas as surplus land. Thereafter, on 5.3.1992, the Commissioner, Aurangabad, issued notice purportedly U/s 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 3 W.P.No.924/92 1961. The said notice is challenged in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Babhulgaonkar, learned counsel contends that the Commissioner could not have invoked its revisional jurisdiction after a period of 16 years. The learned counsel contends that 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 exercise its suo-motu powers U/s 45(2) of the said Act of 1961, within a period of three years i.e. the Commissioner has to apply his mind within a period of three years and not thereafter. 4. The issue that the Commissioner has to apply his mind to the facts of the case within a period of three years U/s 45(2) of the said Act of 1961, is no longer res-integra in 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 4 W.P.No.924/92 supra. 5. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the Commissioner while issuing the impugned notice dated 5.3.1992, has applied his mind within a period of three years. The judgment of the SLDT is dated 7.1.1976 and for the first time, the notice U/s 45(2) of the said Act of 1961 is issued on 5.3.1992. The same is not permissible. 6. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (E). (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp92492 5 W.P.No.924/92