Judgment : 1. This writ petition is directed against notice dated 30.09.1992 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The petitioner herein is a resident of Parbhani district. The enquiry under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, was started in respect of his father namely, Ismail Khan s/o. Lal Khan, in the year 1977. The father of the petitioner, Ismail Khan was aged person and was suffering from Asthma and the petitioner being the only son had participated and conducted enquiry on behalf of his father. The petitioner had submitted return under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act. After following proper procedure the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (S.L.D.T.) passed order on 30.04.1977, thereby father of the petitioner declared surplus holder to the extent of 18 acres 35 gunthas land. The petitioner challenged said order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.), by filing Appeal No. 130/4/77. Said appeal was partly allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry by the M.R.T. by its judgment and order dated 05.07.1977. 2. Pursuant to remand order, the S.L.D.T. held fresh enquiry in the matter and after giving opportunity of hearing to the father of the petitioner and after considering his case, delivered final judgment, thereby held that the petitioner’s father is not surplus holder and he holds land to the extent of 41 acres 15 gunthas., by its order dated 14.04.1978. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that the order of S.L.D.T. dated 14.04.1978 attained finality. On 20.12.1980 father of petitioner Ismail Khan expired. Said land was distributed amongst his legal heirs after his death. 4. It is case of the petitioner that all of a sudden in the month of October, 1992, the petitioner came to know about notice dated 30.09.1992, issued by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 45 (2) of the said Act, thereby initiating suo-motu enquiry. It is specific contention of the petitioner that his father Ismail Khan expired in the year 1980 and notice is issued by the Divisional Commissioner in the name of different person. However, since the petitioner is legal heir of Ismail Khan, remained present before the Collector, Parbhani on 30.10.1992. The petitioner submitted application before the Collector that Ismail Khan is no more. However, the Collector insisted that the petitioner should submit all the documents as enquiry under section 45 (2) is contemplated. 5. However, since the petitioner is legal heir of Ismail Khan, remained present before the Collector, Parbhani on 30.10.1992. The petitioner submitted application before the Collector that Ismail Khan is no more. However, the Collector insisted that the petitioner should submit all the documents as enquiry under section 45 (2) is contemplated. 5. It is case of the petitioner that once the order dated 14.04.1978 passed by the S.L.D.T. has attained finality, it was not open for the Divisional Commissioner, after expiry of 14 years to issue notice for suo-motu revision. At the most the notice should have been issued within three years from the date of order of the S.L.D.T. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed in this petition that such notice issued after 14 years by the Divisional Commissioner may be quashed and set aside. 6. Upon perusal of the pleadings in the petition and upon hearing learned A.G.P. for the respondents, I am of the opinion that the notice issued by the Divisional Commissioner on 30.09.1992 was beyond statutory period prescribed under Section 45 (2) of the said Act. Therefore, on this ground alone the notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. That apart, perusal of notice dated 30.09.1992 does not reflect that the Commissioner has applied his mind to the material or documents in respect of the petitioner and without application of mind such notice is issued after lapse of period of 14 years. The point raised in this petition is no more res-integra. 7. 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 V/s. 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. 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 V/s. 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 V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2002 (2) Mh.L.J.255, 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 V/s. State of Maharashtra and Other, 2004 (1) Mh.L.J.148, 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. V/s. 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, 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. 8. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion the notice dated 30.09.1992 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in File No. 79/ICH-R/157 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 (B). Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition stands disposed of.