JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner herein is resident of village Umapur, Tal. Georai, Dist. Beed. He filed Return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, showing the lands in his holding and members of his family in the year 1975. The Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (S.L.D.T.), Georai, by order dated 261 28th February, 1976, held the petitioner surplus holder of the land to the extent of 6 acres 22= gunthas. The petitioner did not file any appeal challenging the order of the S.L.D.T. Therefore, said order attended finality. 2. It is case of the petitioner that the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, initiated suo-moto enquiry under section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act; 1961, against the petitioner by issuing notice dated 31.10.1992, after lapse of period near about 16 years from the date of judgment and order of S.L.D.T. Said notice is under challenge in this petition. The petitioner has taken as many as ten grounds in the petition and ultimately prayed for quashing of said notice dated 31.10.1992 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. It is admitted position that the notice issued by the Divisional Commissioner is dated 31.10.1992 and the decision of the S.L.D.T. is of 26/28.02.1976. Admittedly, suo motu enquiry is initiated after lapse of about 16 years period. 4. The point raised in this petition is no more res-integra. The notice issued by the Divisional Commissioner is beyond statutory period. Therefore, the petition should succeed on this ground alone. Apart from this on perusal of notice Exh.B, it does not reflect that said notice is issued with proper application of mind to the documents and facts of the case. Therefore, the petition should succeed. The notice dated 31.10.1992 is liable to be set aside. 5. This Court had occasion to interpret provisions of Section 45(2) of the said Act, in the following decisions: In the case of Manohar Ramchandra Manapure & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, 1989 Mh.L.J. 1011, the Full Bench of this Court held that the proviso to section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agriculture Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, restricts the exercise of jurisdiction under section 45(2) to those cases where the record is called for within the period of 3 years from the date of declaration under section 21. The starting point of limitation as prescribed in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 45 is the declaration or part thereof under section 21 of the Act. Calling of the record cannot be equated with the mechanical, clerical or ministerial act of calling for the record for all the proceedings irrespective of the fact whether they were required or not for the purpose specified in the section. It is further held that it is after applying his mind that the revisional authority will have to call for the record of the enquiry or proceedings after conscious application of mind to the facts and circumstances of each case. Where admittedly the necessary application of mind on the part of the Commissioner was much beyond the period of 3 years of the order impugned, it will have to be held that the records were not called within the period of 3 years. In such a case the Commissioner will have no power to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Yet in another decision in the case of Bansilal Ramgopal Bhattad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other, 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 68 , this Court held that suo motu proceedings for revision having been initiated almost after 9 years from the date of decision of S.L.D.T., could not be permitted in law. Suo motu proceedings in question having been initiated after unreasonable period were without authority of law and void ab initio in view of the decision of the Apex Court in 1997(6) SCC 71 . Yet in another reported case of Lotan Fakira Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2002(2) Mh.L.J. 255: [2002(1) ALL MR 585] this Court in the facts of the case held notice under Section 45 (2) of the Act for suo-motu revision was issued on 25.03.1982 and not within the period of three years from the date of order of the S.L.D.T. dated 03.07.1978 and therefore the exercise of powers under the said provisions was beyond the period of limitation and therefore was without jurisdiction. Yet in another case of Champabai w/o. Shankarrao Patwari and Another Vs. Yet in another case of Champabai w/o. Shankarrao Patwari and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other, 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 148 : [2004(1) ALL MR 874], this Court held that the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 lays down two conditions which are required to be satisfied before the State Government or its delegate could invoke the revisional powers. The said two conditions are: (a) that, appeal has not been filed against the order/declaration made by S.L.D.T. within the prescribed period, and (b) that, a period of 3 years has not elapsed from the date of the order or declaration made by S.L.D.T. In the facts of that case the Court held that the decision to initiate the proceedings was taken within three years time. However, same was without application of mind and hence held to be bad-in-law. It is further held that the actual initiation of proceedings was after a lapse of about 8 to 10 years from the date of decision to initiate the proceedings. This delay was totally unexplained. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, the Court held that where the notice came to be issued to the petitioner by the Additional Commissioner, after lapse of period of 8-10 years, after passing orders by S.L.D.T., holding that the petitioners did not hold land in excess of ceiling limit are bad-in-law. Yet in another case of Shalikram Dagduba Solunke etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2004(1) Mah.L.R. 310, this Court held that exercise of revisional powers by Additional Commissioner after 10 to 15 years from the date of order of S.L.D.T., is beyond the statutory period and also passed in mechanical manner and same is liable to be set aside. Yet in another judgment in Gowardhandas s/o. Laxmandas deceased through his L.R. Vijaykumar s/o. Gowardhandas V s. State of Maharashtra and another, 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 571 : [2008(5) ALL MR 95], this Court held that in suo-motu revision by Additional Commissioner, memorandum regarding revision issued on 30.11.1978 after declaration under section 21 on 08.11.1976 but no notice was issued to the petitioner till 1992, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 30.03.1993 is beyond limitation prescribed under section 45(2) of the said Act. 6. 6. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion the notice dated 31.1 0.1992 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in File No.79/ICHR/247 initiating suo motu proceedings under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C). Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition stands disposed of. Petition allowed.