JUDGMENT - V.S. SIRPURKAR, J .:---An extremely unusual petition is filed by the present petitioner in the matter of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. Some facts would be necessary : One Narayan Marotrao Zilape and his minor son Manohar who is now the present petitioner purchased 29.80 acres of land at Nimgaon which was held in Bhumiswami rights as also 0.72 acres which was held in Bhumidhari rights from Devidas s/o Ambadas, Trimbak s/o Ambadas, Sunil s/o Ambadas and Smt. Nirmala w/o Ambadas. This sale-deed is dated 20-4-1967 . We are presently concerned only with the 29.80 acres of land which was held by the vendors in the Bhumiswami rights. It is the claim of the petitioner that ever since the sale the petitioner continues to be in possession till today. Now it is an admitted position that at the time when this sale took place the Ceiling Act was in vogue. However, the aforementioned vendors had not filed any return under the unamended Ceiling Act. They, therefore, were noticed under section 13 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara and ultimately an order had been passed directing them to file the return. They were also fined for Rs. 100/-. This order was passed on 31-10-1972. Inspite of this opportunity, no return came to be filed by the landholders, namely, Devidas, Trimbak and Sunil and, therefore, further orders came to be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara on 22-3-1975 by which the right, title and interest in the lands held by landholders in excess of the ceiling area were forfeited in the State Government. This action obviously has been taken as per section 13(3) of the Act. It was thereafter that the further enquiry began for deciding the further details regarding the holding of the landholders. The landlords appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer and claimed that they were not holding any excess land as there was an oral partition between the three landholders and one Nirmala Ratnaparkhi was also a party to the partition. According to the landholders, this was a partial partition. They gave out their respective shares received in partition and also held by them. It is seen from the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer that this enquiry was completed and finally an order came to be passed on 28-4-1989. According to the landholders, this was a partial partition. They gave out their respective shares received in partition and also held by them. It is seen from the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer that this enquiry was completed and finally an order came to be passed on 28-4-1989. This enquiry seems to have been initiated in the year 1972-73 because the Ceiling Case No. is 5/A-60(2)/72-73 of Kosara. In these proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Officer has held that in all 155.21 acres of land would be the excess land and, therefore, the said land would have to be declared as surplus. While holding this the Sub-Divisional Officer further finds that at the time of passing of the orders the total land in possession of the landholders was 25.41 acres at Pardi and 97.29 acres at village Kosara, total land being 122.70 acres, He, therefore, concluded that even if all this land is taken possession of the landholders would have still to give 32.51 acres of land and since they had already sold their lands the said land will have to be taken from those purchasers who had purchased the lands from the landholders. The Sub-Divisional Officer then declared that leaving 5.10 acres of land, 24.62 acres of land which was purchased by the present petitioner along with his father will have to be recovered to make good the said figure of 32.51 acres of land. 2.This order was challenged by the present petitioner by way of an appeal being Ceiling Appeal No. ALC-A-52/89 while the wife of Trimbakrao, namely, Smt. Padma also filed an appeal which was registered as Ceiling Appeal No. ALC-A-53/89. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Smt. Padma Trimbakrao Ratnaparkhi and in that order itself at paragraphs 9 10 confirmed the action on the part of the Sub-Divisional Officer to recover 24.42 acres of land (it should have been 24.62 acres as per the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer) from the present petitioner. It is this order which is in challenge in the present writ petition. 3.Shri V.N. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, drew my attention to a very unusual fact. He contended that the present order was passed in the year 1989 under the unamended Ceiling Act. However, according to him, even before passing this order there were as many as three ceiling cases disposed of under the amended Ceiling Act. 3.Shri V.N. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, drew my attention to a very unusual fact. He contended that the present order was passed in the year 1989 under the unamended Ceiling Act. However, according to him, even before passing this order there were as many as three ceiling cases disposed of under the amended Ceiling Act. According to him, those three ceiling cases were Revenue Case No. 15/60-A-5/75-76, Revenue Case No. 14/60-A-5/75-76 and Revenue Case No. 16/60-A-5/75-76. He pointed out that these three ceiling cases were in respect of very same persons, as Case No. 15 was against Devidas Ambadas Ratnaparkhi, Case No. 14 was against Trimbakrao Ambadas Ratnaparkhi while Case No. 16 was in respect of Sunil Ambadas Ratnaparkhi. He pointed out that 42.39 acres of land was declared surplus from the holding of Devidas, while 49.31 acres of land was declared surplus from the holding of Trimbak Ambadas and 36.42 acres of land was declared surplus from the holding of Sunil Ambadas and thus 128.12 acres of land was already declared surplus under the provisions of the Amended Act. He pointed out that out of this 128.12 acres, 42.39 acres were already distributed also while in respect of the lands belonging to Sunil, there was litigation pending before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3575/76. He also pointed out that writ petition was thereafter allowed wherein this Court had directed a remand and a full-fledged enquiry. He also pointed out that in respect of the lands of Trimbak Ambadas also a Writ Petition bearing No. 1584/87 was filed before the High Court, and therefore his lands were not so far distributed. Thus, Shri Patil points out that out of 128.12 acres of land which was declared surplus originally 42.39 acres have already been distributed. Shri Patil is not in a position to state as to what has ultimately happened to the cases of Sunil and Trimbak. However, his contention is very substantial that the land to the extent of at least 42.89 acres was distributed from amongst the lands owned by the three respondents in the proceedings started under the amended Act. Shri Patil is not in a position to state as to what has ultimately happened to the cases of Sunil and Trimbak. However, his contention is very substantial that the land to the extent of at least 42.89 acres was distributed from amongst the lands owned by the three respondents in the proceedings started under the amended Act. He points out that those proceedings are all void or were all void as in fact those proceedings could never have been started at all muchless completed particularly in view of the mandatory provisions of section 5 of the Maharashtra Act No. 21 of 1975 which mandated that the proceedings under the amended Acts could not be started unless the proceedings under the unamended Act were first completed. His contention is that if the proceedings under the unamended Act were not completed, then the three separate revenue case in respect of Devidas, Trimbak and Sunil could not have been started muchless completed under the provisions of the new Act and if that had happened then there would have been some land available with the original landholders and in that cases the revenue authorities would not have been required to recover the lands which were encumbered such as the ones owned by the present petitioners. 4.The factual submissions of the learned Counsel regarding the original apathy on the part of the landlords to file returns, the subsequent order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 13 of the Act and the premature emergence of the proceedings under the amended Act are absolutely correct as they are reflected in the impugned order itself. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri R.R. Deshpande for the State of Maharashtra could not dispute this factual position. The learned Single Judge of this Court Patil, J., in an unreported decision- (Manikrao Shankarrao Yende v. The State of Maharashtra)1, Writ Petition No. 375/90 decided on 25-11-1994 has taken a view that the proceedings under the amended Act could not be initiated unless the proceedings under the unamended Act are completed and the lands are distributed in pursuance thereto. Even otherwise the language of section 5 of the Amending Act of 1975 is very clear and admits of no doubt. Even otherwise the language of section 5 of the Amending Act of 1975 is very clear and admits of no doubt. Shri V.N. Patil, therefore, is right in his submission that the proceedings under the amended Act in case of three different landholders could not have been commenced muchless completed and the land in pursuance of those proceedings could not have been delimited and distributed and that those proceedings would have to be ignored while completing the proceedings under the unamended Act like the present proceedings. 5.Shri Patil further pointed out that in the present proceedings though the Sub-Divisional Officer had ordered that the land from the petitioner should be taken in order to make good the surplus land, no notice was served upon the present petitioners. Shri Deshpande tries to counter this argument on the basis of the amendment of section 17(1) and submits that giving of a public notice was sufficient enough and the person like the petitioner who was an interested person was expected to take notice of the proceedings on the basis of the public notice. Now firstly section 17(1) cannot be read in substitution of section 17(2). The matters which are public and made known are different in case of section 17(1) and 17(2). Be that as it may, these were the proceedings under the unamended Act and as such the reliance on the amended language of section 17(1) would not be available. Again when the proceedings started the amendments were not available and, therefore, under section 17(1) and 17(2) necessary notices should have been served upon the petitioner. In the absence of these notices, the proceedings must fail at least in so far as the present petitioner is concerned. 6.Shri Deshpande heavily relied upon the fact the two courts concurrently had found that even under the old Act the landlords were found in possession of the excess land and that the defence raised by the landlords of a partition in the year 1956 was repelled concurrently. Now in fact the merits of the landlords' case would be of no consequence in so far as the grievance of the present petitioner is concerned. All that will have to be seen is if the orders passed in the proceedings started on the basis of the amended Act are ignored whether the landlords would be left with enough lands so as to spare the petitioners' lands. All that will have to be seen is if the orders passed in the proceedings started on the basis of the amended Act are ignored whether the landlords would be left with enough lands so as to spare the petitioners' lands. Though apparently this position is clear, it will be better if the Sub-Divisional Officer examines this position afresh only in respect of the petitioners' lands. The Sub-Divisional Officer will take into account if the enough land was left with the landlord completely ignoring the proceedings under the amended Act and the orders thereupon. If there was more than 24 acres of land left with the landlords, it is obvious that the land of the present petitioner could not be delimited. In that view of the matter, the petition will have to be allowed to the extent indicated in the petition only. The matter is remanded only for the purposes of enquiring as to whether enough lands had been available in case of all the three respondents if the proceedings under the new Act had not been started and the lands had not been distributed. If the finding is in the affirmative, then there would be no question of taking petitioners' lands. The petitioner will be entitled to be heard by the Sub-Divisional Officer in this enquiry. 7.In the result, the Court holds : (i) that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in so far as they affirm the action on the part of the Sub-Divisional Officer to take the possession of the land admeasuring 24.64 acres to make good the excess land held by the respondents Nos. 2 3 are incorrect as the said order depends upon the subsequent orders passed in the proceedings started under the amended Act and (ii) that the authorities have erred in not issuing the notices to the present petitioner and not hearing him. The matter is remanded. In view of the fact that there has been enormous delay, the Sub-Divisional Officer to whom the matter is remanded back shall do well to dispose of this matter within six months from the receipt of the records. The petition is allowed with costs. Petition allowed.