JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---The only point which arises in the above Special Civil Application, is regarding the choice of the surplus lands to be delimited under section 16 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. 2. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has observed in the course of its judgment that as there was no examination or affidavit of the petitioners landlord with respect to the choice made by the petitioner it was rightly not accepted by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. 3. The learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal refused to pass any order though the landlord filed an affidavit stating no objection to the delimitation on the ground that a serious difficulty was created because the land holder was not only actually dispossessed of the surplus land after the order of the learned Surplus Land Determination but the same had already been allotted by the state to the persons entitled to it under the Ceiling Act. 4. The view taken by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of section 21(3) which lays down :--- "The declaration made under this section subject to the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in appeal under section 33, or of the State Government in revision under sub-section (2) of section 45, shall be final and conclusive, and shall not be questioned in any suit or proceedings in any Court." The matter is further made clear by section 45(2), which empowers the State Government to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of any inquiry or proceedings and to make such order as it deems fit, after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of being heard and also by the powers given to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under section 33(3). 5. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal therefore, failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law in refusing to give necessary directions to the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal to do what appears to be the plain requirement of law. 6. Under section 16 of the Ceiling Act, it was the duty of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal to allow the petitioner to exercise his choice and reject his choice only in the event of there being any encumbrance on the land. 7. Mr. Yande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the state is unable to rebut the statement made by Mr. 7. Mr. Yande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the state is unable to rebut the statement made by Mr. Agarwal for the petitioner that in the present case possession appears to have been taken by mistake by the Tahsildar. 8. Whatever it is, I must hold that the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had power to do justice to the parties by passing such orders as the facts and circumstances may require. In the present case, even assuming that the lands were given into the possession, of others, the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ought to have directed the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal to give notice to such person and thereafter decide the matters. 9. In the result, the Special Civil Application is allowed with regard to the question of choice, and the case is restored to the file of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Bhokardan in District Aurangabad for the purpose of accepting the choice of the petitioner under section 16 of the Ceiling Act and decide whether the land which may have been allotted to others should be restored to him in this connection after giving notice to the persons to whom the lands have been already allotted. 10. The petitioner should be given a fair opportunity to express his choice with regard to the lands to be delimited, and thereafter the order should be passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal in accordance with law, as early as possible. 11. Subject to the above modification in the order regarding the delimitation, the order passed by the Tribunal delimiting surplus and shall stand. 12. The Special Civil Application is therefore allowed. Rule is made absolute. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. -----