JUDGMENT - VAIDYA, J.:---The petitioner, Bahadurkhan, was declared a surplus holder under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Paithan on May 7, 1976, to the extent of 33 acres 9 gunthas. The appeal filed against the said decision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was dismissed on July 1, 1976. The concurrent findings and orders of the two learned Tribunals are challenged by the petitioner in the above special civil application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The first point raised by Mr. Agrawal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the two learned Tribunals, erred in including survey No. 81 of the village Dera though it was an Inam land vested in Dargah Gaibi Shah, and the petitioner was neither the owner nor the tenant of the land. The Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, over-ruled this contention on the ground that 1/3rd of the grant was for Mahle Shart, 1/3rd for Saheb Kidmat and 1/3rd for Mutwalli; the question was referred to the Commissioner but the Commissioner had not given any guidance; and as the land was being cultivated by the petitioner as a Mutwalli, the entire area of the land measuring 17 acres 19 gunthas should be included in his holdings. The Revenue Tribunal misread the record of rights entries and held that the land held in the name of a person and not in the name of the Institution and confirmed the finding of the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal. Mr. Agrawal, contended that the concurrent findings of the Tribunal are inconsistent with the record of rights entries which show that it is vested in the Dargah; and the land should not be included in the holdings of the petitioner who is cultivating and managing it only as the Mutwalli. He has also relied upon an unreported a judgment of this Court Dated June 9, 1973, in Special Civil Application Nos. 698 and 1118 of 1966 (Khaja Abdul v. State of Maharahstra)1,1974 Mh.L.J. (Note) 2, p. 1 where it is laid down that no proceedings under the Ceiling Act could be taken in respect of lands dedicated for the service of a Dargah. Mr. Yande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, had to concede that the land was not vested in the petitioner but in the Dargah as already stated above. Mr. Yande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, had to concede that the land was not vested in the petitioner but in the Dargah as already stated above. It cannot be said to be held by the petitioner within the meaning of section 14(2) as the petitioner is neither an owner nor a tenant of the land as defined by section 2(21) of the Ceiling Act. The two learned Tribunals, therefore, erred in law in including Survey No. 81, measuring 17 acres 19 gunthas, in the holdings of the petitioner, as it stands in the name of the Dargah The only other contention raised by Mr. Agrawal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the two learned Tribunals errerd in including in the holdings of the petitioner 43 acres 29 gunthas land of Survey Nos. 256, 257, 282 and 283, which were the subject matter of the Revision Application which is pending between the landlord and the petitioner who claims to be the tenant thereof, and which came into the possession of the petitioner only on October, 3, 1975, in the course of the said proceedings. According to the petitioner he was the tenant of the said lands, and he was wrongfully dispossessed by the landlord. The petitioner had filed the proceedings for restoration of the possession. The possession was restored to him on October 3, 1975 after the order of the Deputy Collector, but the Deputy Collectors order was challenged by the landlord by filing a Revision Application, a copy of which annexed to the petition is at Ex. C. The Revenue Tribunal, has observed that because his tenancy has been upheld in those proceedings by the lower Court, and the petitioner was put in possession on October 3, 1975, the land should be included in the holdings of the petitioner, though the Revenue Tribunal has wrongly described the area of these lands in the judgment as 33 acres and 29 gunthas. Mr. Agrawal says that his interest should be protected by declaring that even when surplus land is being taken from him from the lands delimited by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, it should be delimited from out of survey number 257, 282 and 283. If he losses the remaining survey number 256 measuring 19 acres 19 gunthas, then he will not be a surplus holder. If he losses the remaining survey number 256 measuring 19 acres 19 gunthas, then he will not be a surplus holder. The contention, in my opinion, is academic because the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, has delimited the surplus only out of the lands in dispute in the above application namely Survey No. 257, 282 and 283; and if the landlord succeeds in the proceedings all that would happen is that the petitioner would be holding land less than the surplus ceiling on holdings under the Ceiling Act. This, however, does not require any modification of the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal or the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal. In the result, Special Civil Application is allowed only with respect to Survey No. 81, and the petitioners surplus holding is reduced to the extent of the area of that survey number, namely 17 acres 19 gunthas, and he is declared a surplus holder to the extent of only 33 acres and 19 gunthas minus 17 acres 19 gunthas i.e. to the extent of 15 acres and 30 gunthas. The rest of the orders passed by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunals and the Revenue Tribunal shall stand confirmed. Subject to the above modification, the Rule is discharged. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner shall be declared surplus holder who expect of 15 acres and 30 gunthas out of the lands delimited in Survey No. 257, 282 and 283 and the said surplus shall be taken into possession after giving choice to the petitioner under section 16 of the Ceiling Act. The case is restored to the file of the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, for the purpose of analysing the petitioner to choose 15 acres 30 gunthas, out of Survey Nos. 257, 282 and 283 in which the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal has delimited the surplus. -----