The revisional jurisdiction conferred by section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 is not restricted to the proceedings under sections 17 to 21 or under section 27 of the Act. The inquiry under section 13(2) of the Act is an inquiry within the meaning of section 45(2) of the Act.

MASODKAR J.- The critical controversy raised by these two cases mainly impinges upon the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to call for the record of the inquiry of the Collector so as to find out the liability of the holder to file returns and make appropriate orders under section 45 (2) thereof. In each case the record that was called for and taken into account consisted of the orders made by the authority under section 13 (2) holding that the petitioner in each case was not liable to file the land return under section 12 of the Act. The central submission is that subsection (2) of a section 45 does not permit exercise of revisional power by the Commissioner with regard to the orders so made under section 13.

2. Turning to facts, the same are few. In Special Civil Application No. 7.03 of 1972 proceedings were initiated under section] 3 of the Act by a notice and the Special Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner Jamunabai, being a holder of land less than the ceiling area, was not liable to file a return. He made an order on 18-4-1968 to that effect. After issue of the notice, the Commissioner revised that order holding that the petitioner Jamunabai was a surplus holder. The Commissioner's order dated 21-2-1972, apart from setting aside the order made by the Special Deputy Collector, further purported to give a finding that the sale effected of S. No. 83, area 29 acres, 23 gunthas, of Chandpur, was hit by section 8 and available for taking into account. Thus holding the impugned order held that there was surplus with the landholder and further purported to determine that surplus; and has made a direction to delimit 21 acres 1 guntha as surplus land. Apart from the jurisdiction, the making of such order is also under challenge in this petition.

3. In the companion petition, namely, Special Civil Application No. 565 of 1973, the issue is restricted to jurisdiction, as by the impugned order made by the Commissioner dated 13-4·1973 the Special Deputy Collector is directed to make a detailed inquiry about the land sold by the petitioner Gangshettiwar and make a fresh order against the landholder calling upon the landholder to file a return under section 12 of the Act That order does not decide any controversy but only holds that there is a prima facie case calling for fresh inquiry under section 13.

4. For the petitioners it is contended that section 45 (2) of the Act on a restrictive field and confers jurisdiction only with regard to the section 27 of the Act. Several provisions of the Act are brought ice to indicate that the provisions of sections 17 to 31 and 27 appropriately are only intended by the Legislature to be the subject-matter of revision. It is contended that the use of the word "under" followed by the sections mentioned in the body of sub-section (2) of section 45 controls both “inquiry” and ''proceedings'' preceding it. Similarly, the same construction is placed on the phrase occurring in the proviso. Accordingly, whether it be as inquiry or proceedings under section 13, the revisional power, it is submitted, is not available. As an alternative submission and as a matter of construction, it is submitted that the injunction of section i3 and the steps required to be taken by that provision partake the character of proceedings and not of an inquiry. If it be proceedings, it is clearly excepted from the revisional power. Aid is also taken from the amendment of this law by the further enactments.

5. As against this, for the State as we can gather from submissions of the counsel and the written note dated 21-9-1977, it appears to be the stand that the words "any inquiry" in sub-section (2) of section 45 is referable to sections 17 to 21 and 27: so also word "proceedings" and further by construction only effort is to submit that because section 18 requires the Collec