Judgment J. N. PATEL, J. Decided no: NOVEMBER 22, 2005 ( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is filed impugning the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 10-1-1995 in writ Petition No. 2070/91 under which it upheld the impugned order dated 29-6-1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, amravati Division, Amravati in Ceiling revision No. 2/60-A- (5)/86-87 under which the additional Commissioner in exercise of its revisional powers had set aside the order dated 29-10-1984 passed by the Surplus Lands determination Tribunal, Akot (for short slot) in Revenue Case No. ICH-17-18/ mundgaon-8/76-77 and declared 21 Acres, 11 gunthas of land as surplus land in addition to surplus land declared by SLDT. ( 2 ) THE appellant and his family held agricultural land as given in the table below :- Village S. No. Area Mundgaon 34 14. 05 35/3 4. 25 36/3 6. 2 37/2 8. 37 38 3. 08 Aminapur 26/2 5. 39 27/1 11. 2 Pathardi 293 0. 12 294 0. 06 295 0. 31 296 0. 09 297 0. 31 298 0. 39 Mundgaon 39 14. 06 Sultanpur 2. 21. 34 35/3 4. 35 Mundgaon 36/3 4. 27 TOTAL 103. 24 the appellant was required to file return for the land held by him after coming into force of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961 as amended in the year 1975 and from time to time (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act") before the competent Authority, i. e. SLDT, Akot which came to be registered as Revenue Case no. ICH-17-18/mundgaon-8/76-77. The SLDT after examining the case of the appellant found that the appellant and his family unit is entitled to keep 64, acres 32 gunthas of land and declared 9 acres, 9 gunthas in excess of ceiling area and ordered the same to be deleted from survey No. 34 situated at village Mundgaon. This order passed by the SLDT came to be examined by the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 45 (2) of the Ceiling Act by initiating suo motu revisional proceedings and by his order dated 29-6-1991 modified the order passed by the sldt and held that the contention of the appellant which has been accepted by the sldt that in so far as field survey no. 26/2 area 5 acres, 29 gunthas and survey no. 26/2 area 5 acres, 29 gunthas and survey no. 27/1 area 11, acres 20 gunthas was sold to one damodharadas Khanulalji Rathi for a consideration of Rs. 7500/- by the landholder on 4-10-1971 could not have been excluded from being taken into consideration for determining the ceiling area as provided under section 10 (1) of the amended Ceiling Act and further found that the SLDT has committed an error of accepting the report of agricultural expert for calculation of Pot Kharab land admeasuring 8, acres 36 gunthas in spite of the fact that the said report is not duly proved and on perusal of record of rights and crop statement, area of land under the said category is as under :- Village S. No. Area A. Gs. Reasons for Pot Kharab. Mundgaon 39 0. 05 Under road Sultanpur 2 0. 02 Under road Sultanpur 36/2 4. 37 Under road and other purposes. TOTAL 5. 04 and, therefore, held that the total area of Pot kharab land to be excluded comes to 5 acres and 4 gunthas, out of the total holding and, therefore, modified the order passed by the sldt on 29-10-1984 and declared additional surplus land as under :- 1. Total Holding 103-A 24 Gs. 2. Land entitled for family unit of six members. 64 32 . . 38 32 3. Pot Kharab allowed 5 04 . . 33 28 4. Surplus already declared by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal 24 19 this was challenged by the appellant by filing a Writ Petition in this Court. The learned Single judge upheld the findings of the Additional commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati which is challenged in this appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the decision of the additional Commissioner as well as that of the learned Single judge mainly on two grounds, firstly that the Additional Commissioner erred in not excluding agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 26/2 and 27/1 of village Aminapur which were not in possession of the landholder and came to be sold to Damodhardas Rathi and secondly, that the Additional Commissioner ignored the report of the agricultural expert in determining the Pot Kharab land. It was also contended that the Additional Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in examining these two issues in exercise of his revisional powers under Section 45 of the Ceiling Act. It was also contended that the Additional Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in examining these two issues in exercise of his revisional powers under Section 45 of the Ceiling Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge merely confirmed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his revisional powers without examining the facts of the case. ( 4 ) MR. S. P. Hedaoo, learned counsel for the appellant, placed reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Gulabrao Anandrao mahure Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1976 Mh. L. J. 727 in support of his first contention that agreement of sale entered between the parties prior to the cut-off date, i. e. 26-9-1970 will not be hit by Section 10 of the Ceiling Act and, therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have excluded the land survey nos. 26/1 and 27/1 of village Aminapur while determining surplus land under the ceiling Act. ( 5 ) IN so far as his contention regarding Pot Kharab land is concerned, it is submitted that as the same was determined after spot inspection and on the basis of the report submitted by the expert, the SLDT was justified in considering the extent of Pot kharab land which has to be excluded while calculating surplus land under the Ceiling Act and there was no justification in ignoring the said finding which was a fact finding exercise undertaken by the SLDT while determining the extent of Pot Kharab land which is required to be excluded from calculation of surplus land and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 6 ) THE learned Assistant government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that in so far as the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the decision of Gulabrao (1976 Mh. L. J. 727) is concerned, the same has been reversed by a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in a special Leave Petition preferred by the State of Maharashtra and has cited the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Gulabrao, 1995 (1) mh. LJ. 708 and, therefore, submitted that so far as the firstcontention is concerned, there is no substantial challenge to the finding of the additional Commissioner which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this court. Gulabrao, 1995 (1) mh. LJ. 708 and, therefore, submitted that so far as the firstcontention is concerned, there is no substantial challenge to the finding of the additional Commissioner which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this court. ( 7 ) WE find that this contention on the part of the appellant amounts to misleading the Court. On this, Mr. Hedaoo, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that he was not aware of the decision of the Supreme court reversing the decision in Gulabraos case rendered by the leaned Single Judge of this court and, therefore, he should not be misunderstood. We do not want to enter into any such controversy as the learned Counsel has expressed his ignorance but what we find from the order of the learned Single Judge is that the authority in Gulabrao s case was not cited before the learned Single Judge nor it was raised as an issue but what was tried to be canvassed was that the Additional commissioner could not have reopened the case in exercise of his revisional powers under section 45 (2) of the Ceiling Act. As now the learned Counsel for the appellant has conceded finding of facts by the Additional commissioner confirmed by the learned Single judge, we find no merit in the contention. ( 8 ) IN so far as the next contention on the part of the learned Counsel that the additional Commissioner committed an error in ignoring the finding of the SLDT so far as it relates to Pot Kharab land is concerned, we find that the Additional Commissioner was justified in placing reliance on the revenue records which are maintained in usual course of business, i. e. record of rights and crop statements in which the total area of Pot Kharab land out of the holdings of the appellant have been found to be 5 acres and 04 gunthas which could have been only excluded for the purpose of calculation of surplus land for the very reason that the appellant never took any steps to correct the record of rights or crop statement on the ground that it was not showing the correct position of Pot Kharab land in the respective fields. On the other hand, the SLDT undertook a novel exercise of having a spot inspection conducted to verify the Pot Kharab land in spite of the same being a matter of record which was never challenged by the landholder prior to this enquiry conducted under the Ceiling Act by the SLDT. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. ( 9 ) IN the result, the Letters Patent appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.