JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.: - By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 29-6-1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner/respondent No. 3 in ceiling revision No. 62/60-A(5)/84-85 of Mouza Gunj modifying the order dated 7-7-1983 passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short S.L.D.T.) and declaring 10 acres of agricultural land out of Survey No. 21/1 as surplus in addition to 17 acres which were already declared surplus by the S.L.D.T. is under challenge in this petition. 2. Brief facts are as under : The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 182/1, admeasuring 10 acres of land, situated at Mouza Sawana and also the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 21/1 admeasuring 10 acres of land situated at village Sawargaon. Proceedings were initiated by the S.L.D.T. under section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short the Ceiling Act) and after holding enquiry order was passed on 20-3-1976 declaring the land of 37 acres 2 gunthas as surplus. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short M.R.T.) which came to be decided on 27-5-1976 dismissing the appeal. Thereafter the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 4089 of 1976 in this Court which was decided on 28-4-1977 by the Division Bench and the order passed by M.R.T. was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the S.L.D.T. for decision afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the S.L.D.T. held enquiry on remand and held that the total land held by the family unit of Anandrao was to the extent of 96 acres 28 gunthas as on 26-9-1970 and out of this area 5 acres 28 gunthas was treated as Potkharab and the family unit was allowed to retain 54 acres of land in addition to the Potkharab land, and the area of 37 acres and 2 gunthas was declared surplus. This order dated 30-3-1980 passed by the S.L.D.T. was the subject-matter of challenge before the M.R.T. in appeal bearing Appeal No. ALC-24/80. This order dated 30-3-1980 passed by the S.L.D.T. was the subject-matter of challenge before the M.R.T. in appeal bearing Appeal No. ALC-24/80. The said appeal came to be decided on 25-8-1980 and the M.R.T. corrected the order passed by the S.L.D.T. and directed exclusion of 20 acres of land out of Survey No. 21/1 and 182/1 and remanded the matter for the limited purpose to the S.L.D.T. with a direction to hold appropriate enquiry so far as the exclusion of the land acquired by the Government for the purpose of canal out of Survey No. 92/1 and 92/2. 3. The S.L.D.T. on remand passed an order on 7-7-1983 and ultimately excluded 20 acres of land from the already declared surplus land of 37 acres and held that in all 17 acres of land only is to be declared as surplus under the revised Ceiling Act and that the land has been parted with by the petitioner voluntarily. The Additional Commissioner issued show cause notice suo motu exercising the powers of revision, examined the proceedings and modified the order dated 7-7-1983 passed by the S.L.D.T. and declared that 10 acres of land out of survey No. 21/1 of village Gunj is surplus in addition to 17 acres already declared surplus by the S.L.D.T. and directed the S.L.D.T. to obtain retention form No. VII and declare the surplus land in Form No. VIII and distribute the surplus land strictly in accordance with the provisions and Rules framed thereunder. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the additional commissioner is not sustainable in law and violative of the principles of natural justice as against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the respondent No. 3/Additional Commissioner issued show cause notice to enquire into Survey No. 182/2 of Mouza Sawana and there was no whisper in the notice regarding enquiry of Survey No. 21/1 and therefore the enquiry contemplated by virtue of the said notice is bad in law. The distribution of the surplus land already took place in the year 1983 and the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction under section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act and to reopen the case by exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The distribution of the surplus land already took place in the year 1983 and the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction under section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act and to reopen the case by exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction. He contended that Survey No. 21/1 was already excluded from the holdings of the petitioner by the order passed by the M.R.T. and the finding of M.R.T. has attained finality and, as such, the said order cannot be made subject-matter of revision by the Additional Commissioner and the exercise of the powers by him under section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act was clearly in violation of the provisions of the Ceiling Act so far as the determination of surplus land from Survey No. 21/1 is concerned and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside being illegal, unjust and without jurisdiction. 5. The learned A.G.P. for the respondents contended that the field Survey No. 21/1 during the course of enquiry was sold by Smt. Chandrabhagabai w/o Anandrao the landholder, i.e. the member of the family unit, by sale-deed dated 17-5-1974 and the said land is excluded wrongly by the S.L.D.T. He contended that the aforesaid sale transaction of 10 acres of land out of Survey No. 21/1 is hit by the provisions of the Ceiling Act and the said land cannot be excluded while determining the surplus land and, therefore, the Additional Commissioner was justified in exercising his revisional powers and holding that the 10 acres of land out of Survey No. 21/1 is liable to be declared as surplus in addition to the 17 acres of land. In support of these submissions, he relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in (Madhukar Purshottam Patil v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1987(1) Bom.C.R. 293 . 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioners wife by name Chandrabhagabai sold the land of 10 acres out of Survey No. 21/1 by virtue of the sale-deed dated 17-5-1974 and this fact has been considered by the M.R.T. The M.R.T. in the order dated 25-8-1980 observed in para No. 4 that "with regard to filed Survey No. 21/1, copy of the record of rights with respect to this field is at page 31 of the record. Its perusal show that the whole field Survey No. 21/1 area 24 acres 17 gunthas of village Sawargaon Gode was recorded in the name of Smt. Chandrabhagabai wife of Anandrao landholder as she had purchased the said land vide the sale-deed dated 12-2-1955 for consideration of Rs. 700/- and after that she had sold 5 acres of land to one Gyanba s/o Ramji vide sale deed dated 1-11-1965 and thus she continued in possession of 15 acres 17 gunthas of land and this Chandrabhagabai was holding that field separately as on 25-9-1970. This was the only field in her name and she was holding the land separately from her husband. She had definitely sold this 10 acres of land out of this to one Sitaram Sambaji for consideration of Rs. 6000/- vide sale deed dated 17-6-1974." Therefore, relying on the decision of this Court in (Narayanibai Rambilas v. State of Maharashtra another)2, 1976 Mh.L.J. 865, the M.R.T. held that the area of 10 acres will have to be excluded from the holdings of the petitioner while determining the surplus land. 7. In Narayanibai case, 1976 Mh.L.J. 865, cited supra, this Court held that "the expression "family unit" in section 10 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act as amended can only have reference to such family units as were in existence on 2-10-1975 and not to those which ceased to exist but could also have been in existence prior to the introduction of such conception in the enactment itself and its enforcement. It is section 3 of the Act as amended which prevents a person or a family unit from holding land in excess of the ceiling area. The prohibition becomes operative from the commencement date of the Act namely 2-10-1975. This prohibition has no application to the holding of the land in excess of the ceiling area as defined under the unamended enactment. A seller who did not have land in excess of 54 acres on the date on which he sold the land could not have imagined on the date of sale of he or she being ever required to rebut any such fiction or presumption as a member of any such family unit. Such legal conception with the retrospective implications was not in existence and could not have been even forseen till the amendment No. 47 of 1975 came into force on 20-9-1975. Such legal conception with the retrospective implications was not in existence and could not have been even forseen till the amendment No. 47 of 1975 came into force on 20-9-1975. Sale of only such person will be hit by section 10 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act as amended retrospectively who either is a holder of the land as such person or who happens to be a member of a family unit which is assumed to be the surplus holder of the land on the commencement date. In a case where the holder cannot be said to be the family unit on the commencement date, the fiction of any of its members having effected the transfer with the object of avoiding or defeating the subject of the Amending Act, 1972 cannot arise, much less the question of calculating the holding of all the members of the family unit together on the date of any such sale, there being no enquiry into the holding of any family unit. The conception is not made so retrospective as to permit raising the contemplated fiction or presumption against the sale of any person as member of the family unit, which does not happen to be the holder because of not being in existence on 2-10-1975. What attracts section 10 is the holding of excess land actually or notionally on the commencement date either by the person or the family unit which can be said to have been in existence on the commencement date". 8. The M.R.T. while passing the order dated 25-8-1980 held in para 7 of the judgment that the order of the S.L.D.T. was not correct so far as calculating the area of Survey No. 21/1 and 182/1 was concerned and therefore the total area of 20 Acs covered by these two fields shall be excluded from the holding of the appellant. As far as the Pot Kharab land was concerned, the order passed by the S.L.D.T. was held to be correct. However, with regard to the area acquired from field Survey No. 92/1 and 92/2 was concerned, the case was remanded back to the S.L.D.T. to find out the actual area which was acquired by the Government and to pass fresh orders. However, with regard to the area acquired from field Survey No. 92/1 and 92/2 was concerned, the case was remanded back to the S.L.D.T. to find out the actual area which was acquired by the Government and to pass fresh orders. The order of the S.L.D.T. was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Tribunal only for the limited purpose to find out the land acquired for canal from field Survey No. 92/1 and 92/2 and then to pass fresh orders according to law. (Underline supplied for emphasis). 9. The position that emerges is that the M.R.T. had remanded the matter back to the S.L.D.T. for the limited purpose to find out the land acquired for the canal from Survey No. 91/1 and 92/2 with a direction to pass fresh orders according to law. In view of this direction issued by the M.R.T., it was imperative on the part of the S.L.D.T. to enquire into the land acquired for the purpose of canal and it appears that the S.L.D.T. has taken into consideration these aspects and excluded the area of 3 acres which is said to have been acquired for the canal while determining the surplus land. 10. Thereafter the Additional Commissioner suo motu took up the matter in Revision Bearing Civil Revision No. 62/60-A(5)/84-85 of Gunj. The relevant contents of the show cause notice are as under : "1) The S.L.D.T. excluded 11-09 acres of land from Survey No. 182/2 of Sawana without proper enquiry. 2) The S.L.D.T. also excluded 3 acres from Survey No. 92/2 of Gunj without proper enquiry." 11. The relevant contents of the show cause notice are as under : "1) The S.L.D.T. excluded 11-09 acres of land from Survey No. 182/2 of Sawana without proper enquiry. 2) The S.L.D.T. also excluded 3 acres from Survey No. 92/2 of Gunj without proper enquiry." 11. Perusal of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner would reveal that he did not comment upon in the judgment as to what has been considered by him so far as exclusion of 3 acres of land from Survey No. 92/2 of Gunj is concerned and instead he had considered the findings of the S.L.D.T. which were confirmed by the M.R.T. so far as exclusion of 10 acres of land from Survey No. 182/2 of Sawana is concerned and then the Additional Commissioner recorded the finding that Chandrabhagabai wife of landholder is a member of the joint family unit and all the land held by each joint family member whether jointly or separately for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of family unit be deemed to be held by the family unit as per provisions of section 4(1) of the Ceiling Act. The Additional Commissioner, therefore, observed that "Chandrabhagabai was holding the above land separately. As per section 10(1) of the Amended Act when family unit holds land in excess of the ceiling area, after 26-9-1970 and before 2-10-1975, any transfer made by any person or members of the family unit during this prohibited period are presumed to have been done in anticipation of the Amended Act. Therefore, in calculating the holdings the transfer effected during the prohibited period will have to be taken into consideration. The field Survey No. 21/1, area 10 acres, is, therefore, included in the holdings of the landholder in view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra, 1987(1) Bom.C.R. 293 : 1986 Mh.L.J. 781 cited supra". 12. The decision of the Additional Commissioner is based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra, 1986 Mh.L.J. 781, cited supra. 12. The decision of the Additional Commissioner is based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra, 1986 Mh.L.J. 781, cited supra. This decision was not there in the field when M.R.T. passed the order dated 25-8-1980 and it is obvious that the parties would be governed by the law which was in existence on the date of the judgment delivered by the M.R.T. especially when the judgment of the M.R.T. has attained finality before the Additional Commissioner sought to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction. In such a situation, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned A.G.P. for the State that the field Survey No. 21/1 during the course of revisional enquiry was sold by Chandrabhagabai w/o Anandrao-landholder, i.e. the member of the family unit, vide sale-deed dated 17-5-1974. The said land is excluded by S.L.D.T. in view of the law laid down by this Court in Narayanibais case, 1976 Mh.L.J. 865, cited supra. The decision in Narayanibais case is bad in law and it has been overruled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Madhukar Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 1986 Mh.L.J. 781, cited supra. 13. What is relevant to note is that the decision of this Court in the case of Narayanibai v. State of Maharashtra, 1976 Mh.L.J. 865, cited supra was very much in the field when the matter was decided by the S.L.D.T. and the findings are confirmed by M.R.T. and the M.R.T. clearly held that the area of 10 acres of land has to be excluded out of area of 24 acres 17 gunthas from Survey No. 21/1 as the said land was sold out by Chandrabhagabai for the purpose of meeting out the marriage expenses of her daughter and that the said land was exclusively owned by her and, therefore, the finding of M.R.T. dated 25-8-1980 cannot be said to be erroneous which has become final as the State did not challenge the said order before the appropriate forum. 14. The Additional Commissioner cannot sit over the judgment of the M.R.T. and, therefore, the so-called revisional power exercised by him under section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act was clearly without jurisdiction. 14. The Additional Commissioner cannot sit over the judgment of the M.R.T. and, therefore, the so-called revisional power exercised by him under section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act was clearly without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner modifying the order dated 7-7-1983 passed by the S.L.D.T. directing the land admeasuring 10 acres out of Survey No. 21/1 of village Gunj and declared it as surplus in addition to 17 acres already declared surplus by the S.L.D.T. cannot be sustained in law and this Court is required to quash the said order being illegal, erroneous and unjust. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and that of the M.R.T. is restored. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----