This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th May, 1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in case No. 1978/ICH-R/2772.

2. It is case of the petitioner that, he is resident of village Salimba, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. The petitioner filed return in form III as required U/Sec. 12 of the Ceiling Act on 01.12.1975. He has shown his total holding to the extent of 85 Acres 13 Guntha including 7 survey numbers were shown in the said return.

It is further case of the petitioner that, S. L. D. T., Majalgaon had instituted enquiry proceeding on 02nd December, 1975. The S. L. D. T. made full enquiry in the matter. The statement of the petitioner was recorded. The village record was scrutinized. The petitioner had filed certificate of Special Land Acquisition Officer, birth date extract and other documents. The S. L. D. T. after going through the record came to the conclusion that the area to the extent of 9 Acres 07 Guntha from Sy. No. 8A is not in possession of the petitioner and i. e. in possession of Parubai W/o Bhujangrao Shinde. The said area is calculated in the name of Parubai Shinde in her file No. 75/ICH-R/513 and same was not included in the holding of the petitioner. The S. L. D. T. also found that land admeasuring 24 Acres and 36 Guntha from Survey No. 55 has been acquired by the Government for tank. Therefore, the holding of the petitioner comes to 55 Acres 10 Guntha which is less than the ceiling area. Consequently, the petitioner was declared as non surplus holder by judgment and order dated 13.01.1974 by the S. L. D. T., Majalgaon.

It is the case of the petitioner that, the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad/respondent No. 2 herein by exercising powers U/Sec. 45(2) of the Ceiling Act reopened the suo moto enquiry in the year 1991. The commissioner first time issued notice on 04.04.1991 in file No. 78/ICH-R/2722 and first time communicated the grounds of revision in the said notice.

It is the case of the petitioner that, though the notice reveal that the memorandum of revision was reopened in the year 1978, but the notice of revision is issued and served on the petitioner first time in the year 1991 i.e. after 15 years from the judgment and order of the S. L. D. T. It is further case of the petitioner that, the Additional Commissioner did not call for the record from the S. L. T. D. within three years from the order of the S. L. D. T. However, subsequently, the dates are manipulated showing that the enquiry is reopened in the year 1978. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction or power to reopen suo moto enquiry after lapse of 15 years from the date of order of the S. L. D. T. It is further case of the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner did not call for the record from the S. L. D. T. within three years from the date of order of the S. L. D. T. However, subsequently the dates are manipulated showing that the enquiry is reopened in the year 1978. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction or power to reopen suo-moto enquiry after lapse of 15 years from the date of order of the S. L. D. T. As per provisions of Sec. 45(2) of the said Act period of 3 years is prescribed for initiating or taking steps towards enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner in this petition has prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 13.05.1991 deserves to be set aside.

03. The learned counsel invited my attention to the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in case of Champabai and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 148 and submitted that, the points which are raised in this petition is no more res-intigra and is covered by the decision of this Court cited supra. Therefore, this petition may be allowed. According to the counsel for the petitioner, though the memorandum of revision is shown to be opened i