JUDGMENT - Deshpancle D.B. J.-One Girmaji was a land-owner and he had not filed any return under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 and it was the old Act and this is a proceeding under the old Act. It was on account of this fact that the Deputy Collector at Geerai started an inquiry against Girmaji under section 13 of the Ceiling Act. When notice was sent fro Girmaji it was found that he was dead. Now, this Girmaji had two sons Santram and Kisan. Santram has three sons but we are not much concerned with the names of these sons. Kisan had three sons and a widow who are the petitioners in this Writ Petition. When the Deputy Collector found that Girmaji was dead notice was only sent to Kisan. Notice was not sent to Santram at that time and he was totally neglected or excluded at that time. Kisan was also in the hospital at that time and that is why the notice in the name of Kisan was affixed to his house. Kisan also died on 29-11-1976 and thereafter the inquiry continued only against the present petitioners. ?. 2. By an order, dated 5-11-1975 the Deputy Collector found that the total holding of Kisan as on 26th January 1962, which is the relevant date under the old Act, was 129 Acres and 15 Gunthas. Then the Deputy Collector declared that Kisan was a surpius-holder to the extent of 21 Acres and 15 Gunthas An option was given to exercise the choice for delimita- tion. This was not exercised. The Deputy Collector then suo motu on “29th October, 1976, delimited Survey No. 74 to the extent of 19 Acres 27 Gunthas and Survey No. 232 to the extent of one Acre and 38 Gunthas taking the total to the 21 Acres 15 Gunthas. Kisan did not prefer any appeal against this decision nor did the petitioners prefer any appeal against the same decision after the death of Kisan on 29th October, 1976, and the matter rested there. 3. Limbaji who is the respondent No. 3 in this Writ Petition preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal contending that out of Survey No. 74 he had purchased 9 Acres 33 Gunthas and, therefore, this land could not be included for delimitation. 3. Limbaji who is the respondent No. 3 in this Writ Petition preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal contending that out of Survey No. 74 he had purchased 9 Acres 33 Gunthas and, therefore, this land could not be included for delimitation. It is not disputed that litigation was pending between Kisan and Limbaji in Civil Court and the Civil Court held that Limbaji was in possession of these 9 Acres 33 Gunthas out of Survey No. 74. 4. On 4th July, 1977, therefore, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the appeal of Limbaji partly and remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector for delimiting other lands. Thereafter the Deputy Collector directed delimitation of 16 Acres 23 Gunthas from Survey No. 232 and 9 Acres 33 Guntbas from Survey No. 74 taking the fatal of 26 Acres 16 Gun-thas. It is not known how this much land could be delimited when the surplus was declared to be 21 Acres 15 Gunthas. 5. Thereafter the petitioners filed a revision application before the Commissioner, Atirangabad, challenging both the orders namely, the order declaring surplus to the extent of 21 Acres 15 Guntbas and also the delimita- tion order. The learned Additional Commissioner held that the revision was not maintainable in view of the fact that an appeal was preferred before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and so he rejected this revision applica- tion. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. 6. Now it is apparent that neither Kisan nor the petitioners have filed any appeal against the order of declaration of surplus lands or against the order of delimitation of lands. The appeal that was preferred was by Limbaji-respondent No. 3-only against the delimitation of a portion that was in his possession under a purchase. Hence, it cannot be said that the bar of proviso to section 45 (2) of the Ceiling Act is attracted to the filing of the revision-petition before the Commissioner. Section 45 (2) and the proviso thereof is re-produced below : “45. Hence, it cannot be said that the bar of proviso to section 45 (2) of the Ceiling Act is attracted to the filing of the revision-petition before the Commissioner. Section 45 (2) and the proviso thereof is re-produced below : “45. (!) ....., (2) The State Government may suo motu or on an application made to it by the aggrieved person, at any time, call for tbe record of any inquiry or proceedings under sections 17 to 21 (both inclusive) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any inquiry or proceedings (or any part thereof) under these sections and may pass such order thereon as it deems fit, after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of being heard : Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall entitle the State Government to call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings of a declaration or part thereof under section 21 in relation to any land, unless an appeal against any such declaration or part thereof has not been filed within the period provided for it, the possession of such land has not been taken under sub-section (4) of section 21 and a period of three years from the date of such declaration or part thereof has not elapsed. (3) ………………………..” It is only when the landowner has preferred an appeal to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, he cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner. The bar is attracted only in such cases and not in case of appeals of the kind before me. The appeal was by a stranger and that could not debar the petitioners seeking revisional jurisdiction of tbe Commissioner and, therefore, the order of the learned Additional Commissioner is clearly contrary to law and it deserves to be quashed.” 7. The Writ Petition is allowed. The order, dated 6th June, 1978, of the Additional Commissioner holding that the revision application is not maintainable is quashed and the revision application is remanded back to the Commissioner for deciding the revision application on its merits. Rule made absolute but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed -----