JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---Shivnarayan Badrilal Ladda, was declared a surplus holder, to the extent of 13 acres 29 gunthas by an order, dated March 23, 1976, passed by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Partur. The order was confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, but in the appeal filed by the tenant, a certified copy of the order which was produced before me by Mr. Yande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, and referred to and relied upon by Mr. Agrawal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Revenue Tribunal, modified the order by delimiting the surplus out of survey No. 35 of village Bramawadgaon instead of out of Survey No. 71 of village Dahiphal Bhongane, as directed by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal. One of the grounds urged in the petition filed in this Court for the petitioner was that the land of the tenants was wrongly delimited, but in view of the subsequent decision of the learned Revenue Tribunal, dated June 11, 1976, that ground does not survive and, therefore, Mr. Agrawal appearing for the petitioner fairly stated that he cannot urge that ground now. However, Mr. Agrawal, submitted that a map of the District Inspector of Land Records, Parbhani, showed that 8 acres and 5 gunthas were covered by Dudhana river in Survey No. 35 and it should have been excluded from the holdings of the petitioner. The map was produced by the petitioner before the learned Revenue Tribunal; and the Revenue Tribunal, rejected the map on the ground that it was merely the opinion of the District Inspector of Land Records. Mr. Agrawal, rightly submitted that if the Revenue Tribunal, was inclined not to accept what was stated in the map, an opportunity should have been given in the interest of justice to the petitioner, to show that a river was passing through 8 acres 5 gunthas of land as stated in the map. The contention of Mr. Agrawal, must be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Revenue Tribunal has power to direct the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal to take additional evidence under section 33(3) of the Ceiling Act, which it had failed to do. The contention of Mr. Agrawal, must be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Revenue Tribunal has power to direct the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal to take additional evidence under section 33(3) of the Ceiling Act, which it had failed to do. If 8 acres and 5 gunthas are covered by a river as stated in the map; and it is further proved that the area is incapable of being used for agriculture as defined in section 2(1) of the Ceiling Act, the two learned Tribunals had no jurisdiction, to include that area into the holdings of the petitioner. It may be that the learned Revenue Tribunal was right in treating the map as an opinion of the District Inspector of Land Records, but it must not be forgotten that it is an opinion of an Officer of the Government who is likely to know more about it than anybody else. If the learned Revenue Tribunal entertained any doubt about the acceptance of the opinion, the Tribunal ought to have taken additional evidence about it or sent the matter back to the original Tribunal to enable the petitioner to lead the evidence on the point. The decisions of the two learned Tribunals, are, therefore, liable to be set aside with regard to the said 8 acres and 5 gunthas land mentioned in the map and the case restored to the file of the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Partur, for enabling the said Tribunal to give an further opportunity to the petitioner, to prove by relevant and admissible evidence that the said 8 acres 5 gunthas or any part there not used or not capable of being used for agriculture as defined in section 2(1) of the Ceiling Act. As no other ground is urged in support of the Special Civil Application, the other findings recorded by the two learned Tribunals, must stand; and the State is free to disposses the petitioner of the surplus land to the extent of 13 acres and 29 gunthas minus 8 acres 5 gunthas i.e. 5 acres 24 gunthas from survey No. 35 as ordered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in tenants appeal on August 11, 1976. So far as the remaining 8 acres 5 gunthas are concerned the petitioner should make an application to the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal to permit him to lead additional evidence as in law he may be able to produce with regard to the use of land shown in the map issued by District Inspector of Land Records; and the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal shall hold an inquiry with regard to the map and then declare whether 8 acres 5 gunthas or any part thereof was capable of being used for agriculture as defined under section 2(1). If it comes to the conclusion that the said area of 8 acres 5 gunthas or any part thereof, may incapable of being used for agriculture and is not used for agriculture, the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, shall reduce the surplus to the extent of the area found to be so incapable of being used for agriculture, but if on the other hand, after recording evidence on behalf of the petitioner, and the State, the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, comes to the conclusion that any part of that area cannot be excluded as being not used or not shall capable of being used for agriculture, then the surplus declared already shall stand. Again if the petitioner fails to make the application for additional evidence within 8 days of the receipt of the writ of this Court by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, Partur, or within two months from today, whichever date is earlier then also the surplus declared already by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, on April 14, 1976 shall stand; and the petitioner shall be dispossessed of the entire surplus land from out of survey No. 35 as directed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on August 11, 1976 in Tenancy Case Revision Application No. 1620/A/76-Parbhani. Subject to what is stated herein above, Rule is made absolute. As the petitioner, is allowed another opportunity to lead further evidence about the use of the land mentioned in the District Inspector of Land Records map, the petitioner, should pay the costs of the respondents. -----