JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The order which has been passed by the Additional Commissioner of Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal Desk/C.L.N. 130 dated 29-4-1986 is under challenge in this writ petition. The controversy is in respect of land admeasuring 30 acres 28 gunthas in context with Survey No. 233 Hissa No. 3, Survey No. 232 Hissa No. 2, Survey No. 231 Hissa No. 1, Survey No. 192, Survey No. 191 Hissa No. 13, Survey No. 191 Hissa No. 8, Survey No. 234 Hissa No. 4, and Survey No. 177 Hissa No. 3, situated at village Manda, Taluka Kalyan which was dealt with by Tahasildar Kalyan in Case Nos. 14 and 13 by his order dated 1-3-1976, was considered by the Additional Tahasildar in Tenancy Case No. Mande/1579, Kalyan, dated 7-9-1979 and the Assistant Collector in Ceiling Enquiry No. N-5 by his order dated 30-11-1979. In a suo motu revision, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai found that the said Assistant Collector has no jurisdiction and power to review and revise his own order. Thus, he set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Thane on 30-11-1979 and directed the Assistant Collector, Thane Division to declare land admeasuring 25-A 36-Gs, 11-As in excess of the ceiling area as it was confirmed by Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. 2. Shri Karandikar appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Assistant Collector, Thane as well as the Additional Commissioner, Kalyan noticed that the land admeasuring 30 acres 28 gunthas as mentioned by the Tahasildar in his order quoted supra was not belonging to the petitioner. When that was so, such land was required to be deducted from the land which was considered for holding whether the land belonging to the petitioner happens to be surplus in view of provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for convenience). He submitted that in view of that, at least the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai should have taken a decision for adjudicating whether any land belonging to the petitioner happens to be "surplus" in view of the provisions of the said Act when he was dealing with the subject matter in suo motu revision. 3. Mr. He submitted that in view of that, at least the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai should have taken a decision for adjudicating whether any land belonging to the petitioner happens to be "surplus" in view of the provisions of the said Act when he was dealing with the subject matter in suo motu revision. 3. Mr. Jadhav supported the impugned order by submitting that the Assistant Collector has no authority and jurisdiction to revise his own order and to declare that the land admeasuring 30 Acres and 28 Gunthas needs to be deducted from the holding of the petitioner and in view of that the petitioner has come below the ceiling area. 4. I find substance in the submissions advanced by Mr. Karandikar. When the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, was dealing with the subject matter in suo motu revision, it was necessary for him to give an opportunity to the petitioner and to give him an option to declare the land which he was surrendering as surplus in view of provisions of the said Act. In other words, it was incumbent upon the Additional Commissioner, Mumbai, to adjudicate whether the petitioner was really holding the land more than the prescribed limit indicated by the said Act as surplus. He could not have directed the Assistant Collector, Thane to declare a particular land belonging to the petitioner as surplus without following the process for determination whether he was holding surplus land as contemplated by the relevant provisions of the said Act. There has to be an adjudication over it and for that purpose a show cause notice has to be issued to the petitioner. After hearing him, the Assistant Collector, Thane, should adjudicate whether the petitioner is holding surplus land as contemplated by the said Act. After that adjudication has become final, an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to opt for a particular land or piece of land for surrendering if he happens to be holding the surplus land as contemplated by the said Act and for that purpose the enquiry should be in view of section 18-H of the said Act. Thus, the writ of certiorari is hereby granted in favour of the petitioner and the judgment and order which has been assailed by this petition passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai stands set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. Rule stands made absolute. Thus, the writ of certiorari is hereby granted in favour of the petitioner and the judgment and order which has been assailed by this petition passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai stands set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. Rule stands made absolute. No order as to costs. 5. Parties to appear before the Assistant Collector, Thane on 10-4-2002. Writ petition allowed. -----