JUDGMENT:- The Petition seeks to have the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, on 25-5-1993 in Revision No.6/60-A(6)/89-90 of Dhamangaon quashed and set aside and a further direction to the authorities to take surplus land from the holding of respondent No.5 Gangadhar Raghoba Bhoyar from whom the petitioner had purchased the land. 2. The Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, "the Ceiling Act") came into force on 2-10-1975. The petitioner purchased 11.25 acres of land from survey No.55 from respondent No.5 on 26-7-1979. Thus the land had to be included under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act for computing the total holding of land holder respondent No.5. On 8-6-1987, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal determined that 18.81 acres of land was surplus and also possibly held that the land was delimited from survey No.55. The landlord had challenged the computation of total holding and the surplus land before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by preferring Ceiling Appeal No.47 of 1989. The State also seems to have raised a cross-objection and eventually the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by its order dated 25-9-1987, held that 22.01 acres of land was to be treated as surplus and directed the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal to take further action to delimit 22.01 acres of land after giving the appellant an opportunity to exercise choice of retention. 3. By a Jahirnama or proclamation published on 28-3-1990, the petitioner's land was sought to be taken up as surplus land. The petitioner, therefore, filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, which was rejected by the Commissioner by his impugned order dated 25-5-1993. This is why the petitioner is before this Court. 4. I have heard Shri. R. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. A. M. Deshpande, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and Shri. S. D. Chopde, learned counsel for respondent No.5, owner of the land. 5. The learned AGP has also made available for my perusal the record of the proceedings before the Commissioner. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner in his impugned order has observed that the order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal dated 8-6-1987 mentions that the surplus land will be from the possession of the landlord. 5. The learned AGP has also made available for my perusal the record of the proceedings before the Commissioner. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner in his impugned order has observed that the order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal dated 8-6-1987 mentions that the surplus land will be from the possession of the landlord. Thus till 8-6-1987, there was no question of the petitioner having any grievance in respect of the proceedings before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, since his land was not be touched. In. the light of this, the observations of the learned Additional Commissioner in his impugned order that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and reference to the objection raised by the petitioner on 9-3-1981 as also petitioner's presence on 18-2-1981 and 16-4-1981 before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal is Agricultural Lands (Lowering Ceiling on Holdings) (Declaration and Taking Possession of Surplus Land) Amendment Rules, 1975 made under the Ceiling Act, which provides for the manner and extent to which land of and in possession of transferees could be deemed surplus land under Section 10(1). It lays down that out of the land transferred and in possession of transferee, where there is one transfree, then land to the extent of the deficiency shall be deemed to surplus land. This deficiency is the deficiency after using up the lands in possession of a landholder. 11. In view of this the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is quashed and set aside. The proclamation dated 28-3-1990 is also quashed and set aside. The authorities shall initiate the exercise of delimiting surplus land afresh after first exhausting the lands, which are in possession of the landholder and then touch the lands which are transferred to the petitioner or others. 12. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.