1 W.P.No.922/92 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.922 OF 1992. Limbaji Annasaheb Thavre, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anandgaon, Tq.Manjalgaon, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.K.M.Babhulgaonkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2 W.P.No.922/92 2. The inquiry was conducted by the SLDT regarding the holding of the petitioner's land. The SLDT vide the judgment and order dated 22.7.1976, declared that petitioner holds 18 acres 14 gunthas land as surplus. Thereafter, on 4.3.1992, the Commissioner, Aurangabad, issued notice to the petitioner purportedly U/s 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The said notice is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Babhulgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of 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, contends that the Commissioner could not have exercised the revisional jurisdiction after the period of three years. The Commissioner has to apply the mind within a period of three years from the judgment of the SLDT. 4. The issue that the Commissioner has to apply his mind to the matter within a period of 3 W.P.No.922/92 three years, if the Commissioner wants to invoke his jurisdiction 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 supra. 5. There is nothing on record to show that the Commissioner had applied his mind within a period of three years from the date of the judgment of the SLDT. In view of the above, the impugned notice is not sustainable. As such the Writ Petition is allowed. 6. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (E). (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp92292 4 W.P.No.922/92