JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---These three writ petitions raise the same controversy and relate to identical facts and, therefore, all the three petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the facts obtaining in Writ Petition No. 2677 of 1984. According to the case set up by the petitioner after coming into force of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short "Ceiling Act") certain lands held by the Faltan Sugar Works Ltd., Sakharwadi, Tal. Faltan, District Satara were declared surplus lands. A declaration under section 21(1) of the Ceiling Act was made by Special Deputy Collector (Land Ceiling) on 30-3-1963 and a notification to that effect was published. According to the petitioner, (the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Limited), the State Government permitted them to cultivate these lands and later on these lands were permanently granted to the Corporation. The case of the petitioner is that some portion of the land which was granted to them by the State Government has been trespassed by respondent No. 1 and he started cultivating the said land unauthorisedly. In view of the unauthorised possession of the respondent No. 1 over the portion of the land which was granted to the petitioner by the State, an application was made for summary eviction of respondent No. 1 under section 40 of the Ceiling Act before the Collector, Satara. The said application was disposed of by Assistant Collector, Satara. The said application was disposed of by Assistant Collector, Faltan Division, Faltan on 30-6-1980 and summary eviction of respondent No. 1 was ordered. An appeal was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The said appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 3-10-1983 giving rise to the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Rane, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Tribunal seriously erred in holding that the application under section 40 of the Ceiling Act could not be resorted to by the petitioner since the land vested in the State and the State has not chosen to proceed against the respondent No. 1. 3. Mr. Rane, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Tribunal seriously erred in holding that the application under section 40 of the Ceiling Act could not be resorted to by the petitioner since the land vested in the State and the State has not chosen to proceed against the respondent No. 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that an application for the summary eviction was maintainable at the instance of the petitioner under section 40 of the Ceiling Act before the Collector and Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to make such an application. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the declaration under section 21(1) of the Ceiling Act is made only after the possession comes to the State and, therefore, once the declaration was made under sub-section (1) of section 21, it must be assumed that the State got the possession of the surplus land declared under sub-section (1) of section 21 and since portion of such land was encroached upon by respondent No. 1 the application under section 40 was maintainable and order of Tribunal is rendered unsustainable. 4. It does appear that the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Ceiling Act was made regarding surplus land held by the Faltan Sugar Works Ltd., Sakharwadi, Tal. Faltan, District Satara on 30-3-1963 by Special Deputy Collector (Land Ceiling) which included the disputed land. Besides that there is no averment or material that the State Government came in actual physical possession of the surplus land so declared. Rather in the application made by the petitioner under section 40 it is stated that actual possession of the surplus land of which declaration was made under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Ceiling Act was not handed over by the State to the petitioner nor it could have been since the State also does not seem to have got the possession of the disputed land. In the aforesaid facts, the correctness of the order of the Tribunal needs to be examined. 5. It would be advantageous to refer here section 21 and section 40 of the Ceiling Act. In the aforesaid facts, the correctness of the order of the Tribunal needs to be examined. 5. It would be advantageous to refer here section 21 and section 40 of the Ceiling Act. Section 21(1) and (2) of the Ceiling Act reads thus: "21.(1) As soon as may be after the Collector has considered the matters referred to in section 18 and the question, if any, under sub-section (3) of section 20, he shall make a declaration stating therein his decision on- (a) the total area of land which the person or family unit is entitled to hold as the ceiling area; (b) the total area of land which is in excess of the ceiling area; (c) the name of the landlord to whom possession of land is to be restored under section 19, and area and particulars of such land; (d) the area, description and full particulars of the land which is delimited as surplus land; (e) the area and particulars of land out of surplus land, in respect of which the right, title and interest of the person or family unit holding it is to be forfeited to the State Government The Collector shall announce his declaration in the presence of the holder and other persons interested who are present at the time of such declaration. (2) After a declaration under sub-section (1) is made the Collector shall prepare a statement in the prescribed form giving details of the area, description and full particular of the land which is delimited as surplus land, and also of the land therefrom, the right, title and interest in which is to be forefeited to the State Government. The Collector shall affix a copy of the statement at the village Chawdi or any other prominent place at the village and shall also despatch a copy of the statement to the person or to the member of the family unit interested in the land delimited as surplus. On the date of the announcement of the declaration mentioned in the preceding sub-section, the right, title and interest in the land which is liable to forfeiture shall stand forfeited to and vest in the State Government . On the date of the announcement of the declaration mentioned in the preceding sub-section, the right, title and interest in the land which is liable to forfeiture shall stand forfeited to and vest in the State Government . On and after the date of announcement of the declaration no sale, gift, mortgage, exchange, lease or any other disposition (including any transfer in execution of a decree or order of a Court, tribunal or authority) shall be made of the land which is delimited as surplus land. If any such disposition or transfer is made, it shall be invalid, and of no effect. Explanation. --- Declaration of any land as surplus shall not be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground that the statement giving details of the land is not affixed as aforesaid or has not been despatched to the person or member of the family unit as provided in sub-section (2). Provided that, if-- (a) any right of resumption under the relevant tenancy law in respect of, or (b) possession of, or right to possession of, any land delimited as surplus, is subject to proceedings under any other law in any Court or tribunal, or before any authority, then so much only of the land as the holder of the surplus land in such proceedings is finally held- (i) not to be entitled to retain, or (ii) not to be in possession of, or not to be entitled to possess, may be transferred in pursuance of such proceedings. Explanation.-- For the purpose of this proviso, the proceedings, means proceedings for acquisition of land for a public purpose or for the sale of land for realisation of land revenue or sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue and any other proceedings instituted before the 26th day of September 1970 and pending on the commencement date in any Court, or tribunal or before any authority." 6. Section 40 of the Ceiling Act reads thus: "40. Any person, unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of, any land.--- (a) which vests in the State Government under this Act, or (b) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the provisions of this Act, may be summarily evicted by the Collector after such inquiry as he deems fit." 7. Any person, unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of, any land.--- (a) which vests in the State Government under this Act, or (b) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the provisions of this Act, may be summarily evicted by the Collector after such inquiry as he deems fit." 7. It would be noticed from perusal of section 21 that Collector has to make declaration regarding surplus land held by land holder and delimit the same. The right of the landholder in such surplus land is forfeited on declaration and such land vests in the State Government. The word 'vest' occurring in section 21(2) is synonymous with 'right, title and interest'. The word 'vest' has got no fixed connotation; it is a word of different meaning in different context. In some places the expression 'vest' may have limited meaning while at other places it may have wider sense. In the context of particular piece of legislation the meaning needs to be assigned to the expression 'vest'. In the background of provisions and purpose of Ceiling Law, I am of the view the word 'vest' occurring in section 21(2) means vesting in right, title an interest. The same meaning deserves to be given to the word 'vest' in section 40 (1) of Ceiling Act. 8. A perusal of section 40 of Ceiling Act would reveal that it provides summary eviction of a person who is in unauthorised occupation or wrongful possession of the land which vests in the State Government under the Ceiling Act or for summary eviction of a person who is using and occupying the land which he is not entitled under the provisions of this Act. The summary procedure for eviction of an unauthorised occupation is provided under section 40 of the Act relating to the land upon which interest, right and title of the State government have accrued under the Ceiling Act. Obviously, such proceeding has to the initiated either at the instance of the State Government in whom the land has vested under the Ceiling Act or even suo motu by the Collector. But no other person is entitled to invoke the provisions of section 40 of the Act. Similarly, the procedure of summary eviction can be invoked against a person who is using and occupying the land which he is not entitled under the Ceiling Act. But no other person is entitled to invoke the provisions of section 40 of the Act. Similarly, the procedure of summary eviction can be invoked against a person who is using and occupying the land which he is not entitled under the Ceiling Act. The scheme of section 40 seems to be that upon a declaration of surplus land being made under sub-section (1) of section 21 and after the land has vested in the State if the owner of the land whose land has been declared surplus or tenant of such land or any person on their behalf is in occupation or possession, such possession being unauthorised and wrongful on vesting of the said land in the State may be removed summarily. Such summary procedure for eviction is also applicable and can be invoked relating to the land vested in the State if any person uses or occupies the land which he is not entitled under the Ceiling Act. Upon the declaration of the surplus land under sub-section (1) of section 21, the surplus land had vested in the State it was open to the State Government to initiate proceedings of summary eviction against unauthorised occupation or wrongful possession of any person but it was not open to the petitioner to make an application under section 40 seeking dispossession of the respondent No. 1. After the land in question had vested in the State it was transferred by the State to the petitioner and, therefore, section 40 is rendered inapplicable and it was not open to the petitioner to invoke section 40 of the Act. 9. The reasons given by the Tribunal in the impugned orders do not seem to suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and consequently the writ petitions have no merit and are liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.