JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The purchasers from a surplus land owner, namely, Leelabai Gopaldas Zanvar are before this Court in these Review Applications. They seek review of judgment dated 30.07.1998 by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) Nos. 171/1993 and 172/1993. 2. While issuing Rule in these Review Applications on 31.08.1999, this Court has protected possession of review applicants, who were appellants in LPAs. That interim order operates even today. In this backdrop, we have heard Adv. A.J. Gilda (without instructions) for review applicants and learned AGP for respondent no.1. Nobody has appeared for respondent no.2-land owner, though served. Respondent no.2 is the vendor of present review applicants. 3. In these cases, facts are not in dispute. Review applicant-Vishnu has purchased agricultural land admeasuring 4 acres out of Survey No. 22/2 on 21.02.1979 for Rs. 9,000/- and is in possession since then. Review applicant-Himmatrao has purchased 4 acres of land out of out Survey No.22/1 on 29.07.1978 and 21.02.1979 and is in possession since then. Both these applicants have purchased these lands from respondent no.2-Leelabai Gopaldas Zanvar. 4. Notices under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (in short “Ceiling Act”) for distribution of land held surplus in holding of Leelabai was served upon these review applicants. Against these notices dated 14.09.1990 they filed Revisions under section 45-A (2) of the Ceiling Act, before respondent no.1-Divisional Commissioner. Those Revisions were registered as Ceiling Revision No.2/60-A(5)/90-91 of Mouza Khairi Donoda and Revision No.3/60-A (5) 90-91 of Mouza Khairi Donoda. These Revisions have been decided on 16th February, 1993.The Divisional Commissioner found that lands admeasuring 123.24 acres was declared surplus on 30.12.1983 from holding of Leelabai u/s.21(1) of the Ceiling Act. Leelabai filed an appeal being Appeal No. ALC-A-228/85 in Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (in short “MRT”) and on 25.03.1986, the MRT brought down area of surplus land to 119.37 acres. Thereafter recourse to Section 27 for its distribution, was taken. The Divisional Commissioner held that revision-applicants before him did not point out any error or fault in proceedings concluded u/s. 21 and have also not therefore pointed out any error in retention statement filed by Leelabai. Said authority found that the objection in Revision was about the proceedings which culminated u/s 21 and those proceedings had attained finality after adjudication by MRT. Said authority found that the objection in Revision was about the proceedings which culminated u/s 21 and those proceedings had attained finality after adjudication by MRT. There was no objection before him in relation to distribution u/s. 27 of the Ceiling Act. Thus, because of MRT’s order u/s 21 dated 30.12.1983, the proceedings had become final and time limit of 3 years for filing revision had already expired. Said authority found that therefore cognizance could not have been taken in revision. It therefore held that during distribution proceedings objection of present nature could not have been looked into. Revision was, therefore, dismissed. 5. Revision applicants then approached this Court in Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. These two Writ Petitions were registered as Writ Petition No.2284/1993 and 2285/1993 respectively. The learned single judge of this Court decided both these writ petitions by common judgment on 12.10.1993. In Paragraph 1 briefly facts have been mentioned and in paragraph 2 reliance by counsel for petitioners on provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of the Ceiling Act has been mentioned. The said mention and contention that exercise of choice by Leelabai is regulated by law and she could not have included lands sold by her to review applicants, has been found to be without any merit. The only observation is, said submission is wholly without any merit. Thereafter, it is observed that purchases were in the year 1979 and therefore not in good faith. Prayer in revision before Divisional Commissioner was only to stay distribution and choice exercised by Leelabai was not questioned and no relief in that respect, was sought. Because of this brief reasoning, petitions were dismissed. 6. In LPA Nos.171 and 172 both of 1993, the Division Bench has upheld the order. The Division Bench has found that Section 10 (3) rendered acquisition of land in willful contravention of Section 9 void and as a penalty therefore, right, title and interest of the person in the land so acquired stood forfeited. It is held that the review applicant i.e. appellant in LPA purchased land in contravention of Section 9 and hence right, title and interest was already forfeited. It is held that the review applicant i.e. appellant in LPA purchased land in contravention of Section 9 and hence right, title and interest was already forfeited. In paragraph 2 of judgment, Division Bench has then looked into argument that due to encumbrances the Collector should have conducted enquiry, to find out whether from holding Leelabai some other land could have been forfeited to Government. The Division Bench held that there was no question of any encumbrance because land was alienated to appellant before it, in contravention of Section 9 and therefore the transaction was governed by Section 10 (3) and not by the proviso thereto. Because of this reasoning, the LPAs have been dismissed. 7. Adv. Gilda has submitted that Section 9 and Section 10 apply to a holder of land who is required to file return u/s 12 thereof. The provisions therefore could not have been used to render sale deed in favour of present review-applicants bad. He contends that present possession of review applicants which is admittedly uninterrupted from the date of respective sale deed in their favour shows absence of any enquiry as contemplated by Section 14 and Section 18 of the Ceiling Act and hence non-compliance with Section 21. As the possession is still with review applicants, lands purchased by them have not vested in State Government and could not have been therefore placed for distribution u/s 27. Learned counsel submits that though in Writ Petitions and thereafter in LPAs all these contentions were raised and attempts were made to press the same into service, the same have escaped attention of this Court. 8. Learned AGP has strongly opposed the review Applications. According to him, the Review Applications arise out of revisions and the revisions were barred by limitation. The review petitioners i.e. present review applicants did not specifically assail choice of land by Leelabai for retention and hence finding of learned single Judge that litigation is being fought in collusion, appears to be just and proper. He has also invited our attention to specific observations of Division Bench that appellants before it do not get any right consequent to sale deed and the right, title in subject-land is already forfeited to Government. He submits that findings demonstrate absence of locus in review applicants to maintain even application for revision u/s 45. He therefore prays for dismissal of Review Applications. 9. He submits that findings demonstrate absence of locus in review applicants to maintain even application for revision u/s 45. He therefore prays for dismissal of Review Applications. 9. With the assistance of respective counsel we have perused records. 10. Chapter IV of the Ceiling Act is about ‘Surplus Land’. Section 12 is about submission of returns. It obligates Leelabai to file a return as she admittedly possessed surplus land. Accordingly, return was filed by her. The relevant dates envisaged in Section 12 (1) are 26th day of September, 1970 and commencement date i.e. 2nd October, 1975. The ceiling proceedings thereafter started and obliged Collector to hold enquiry in terms of Section 14. Section 16, thereafter, obliges Leelabai to select land for retention. Thus, after completing exercise u/ss. 12 and 14 extent of land found surplus with Leelabai stood determined. That determination initially on 30th December, 1983 was 123.24 acres and MRT brought it down to 119.37 acre, on 25.03.1986. After the extent of surplus land became known, Section 16 obliges Leelabai to give her choice i.e. in Form Nos.7 and 8 indicating Survey number of lands to be retained by her and survey number which can be declared surplus. Section 17 obliges Collector to give notice of enquiry u/s 14 to persons who are likely to be affected by determination of surplus land or retainable land. Said provision contemplates public notice in prescribed form to be given at convenient places in the villages where the land to be dealt with is situated, notice to the holder of land in respect of which enquiry is to be held and calling upon all persons interested in the land to submit to Collector their objections within stipulated period. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 mandates that Collector has to serve notice to the same effect on holders and on all other persons who are known or believed to be interested in the land to be dealt with in such enquiry. Sub-Section (3) is about the contents of notice. Thus, after such notice to persons interested, the extent of surplus land can be worked out. In backdrop of this finding, then u/s 16 the lands need to be selected for retention in ceiling area and therefore lands which can be declared surplus are determined. Sub-Section (3) is about the contents of notice. Thus, after such notice to persons interested, the extent of surplus land can be worked out. In backdrop of this finding, then u/s 16 the lands need to be selected for retention in ceiling area and therefore lands which can be declared surplus are determined. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 in this situation envisages lands which are subject to encumbrance and mandates that if such land is subject to encumbrances then the owner like Leelabai has to retain that land with herself and it cannot be declared surplus. 11. After this enquiry and retention statement, u/s 21 Collector has to make declaration regarding surplus land and consequences flowing therefrom, are stipulated. Under sub-section (1) of Section 21 Collector has to make a declaration about total area of land with Leelabai, total area with her in excess of ceiling area, description and full particulars of land which is delimited as surplus land. Under sub-section (2), then Collector has to prepare a statement on above lines. Copy of this statement is then to be affixed on village chawdi at prominent places where the land is located. Thereafter right, title and interest in the land which are liable to be forfeited, stands forfeited and vest in the State Government. Sub-section (3) makes this declaration final and conclusive, subject to decision of MRT in Appeal u/s 33 and subject to decision of State Government in Revision under sub-section (2) of Section 45. Under sub-section (4) of Section 21 then Collector has to take possession of land delimited in prescribed manner. It declares that surplus land with effect from the date on which possession thereof is taken by Collector is deemed to be acquired by State Government for the purpose of Ceiling Act and accordingly vests without further assurance and free from all encumbrances in State Government 12. This scheme is mentioned by us only to highlight the fact that here possession of review applicants has not been disturbed right from date of their respective sale deeds in 1979 till today. This obviously means that steps u/s 21 (4) have not been followed It may also therefore imply that earlier mandatory provisions including enquiry u/s 14 or verification as mandated u/s 18 has not been done at all. This obviously means that steps u/s 21 (4) have not been followed It may also therefore imply that earlier mandatory provisions including enquiry u/s 14 or verification as mandated u/s 18 has not been done at all. The fact of possession of review applicants militates with vesting of land with State Government for the purpose of Ceiling Act, free from all encumbrances. 13. The enquiry u/s 14 and steps u/s 18 would have resulted in review applicants raising an objection before Collector and pressing their sale deeds into service. This would have resulted in Office of Collector rectifying retention statement filed by Leelabai and including the lands of present review applicants in her retention statement. 14. Here, attention needs to be given to provisions of Section 10(1) read with Rule 4 of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) (Declaration and Taking Possession of Surplus Land) and Amendment Rules, 1975. Said provision stipulates that if after accepting sale deed in favour of review applicant total holding of Leelabai is found to be less than the extent of surplus land which is to be taken by State Government from her, the shortfall can be made good by taking possession of lands even from review applicants. Thus only to that extent, sale-deeds executed in their favour by Leelabai are subservient to the scheme of Ceiling Act. In present matter, there is no such adjudication. 15. We find that Section 9 which deals with restriction on acquisition of land in excess of ceiling area mandates that person like Leelabai is prohibited from acquiring by transfer any land. Section 9 does not prohibit her from selling the land. Section 10 speaks of consequences of transfers and acquisitions of land. The error apparent is that Division Bench while dismissing LPAs has looked into aspect of acquisition. The acquisition would be relevant if Leelabai had purchased some land in violation of section 9 supra. Here, Leelabai has sold the land therefore it is Section 10 (1) which becomes relevant. Sub-section (1)(a) contemplates sale by Leelabai after 26th September, 1970. Clause (b) thereof contemplates transfer by her in violation of Section 8. The acquisition would be relevant if Leelabai had purchased some land in violation of section 9 supra. Here, Leelabai has sold the land therefore it is Section 10 (1) which becomes relevant. Sub-section (1)(a) contemplates sale by Leelabai after 26th September, 1970. Clause (b) thereof contemplates transfer by her in violation of Section 8. Section 8 stipulates that where a person like Leelabai holds land in excess of ceiling area on or after commencement date, such a person or as the case may be, any member of his family shall not transfer any land until land in excess of ceiling area is determined under this Act. Thus, u/s 8 Leelabai could not have sold lands to present petitioners after 02.10.1975 till surplus land in her possession was determined. Here, that position has been decided finally by MRT on 25.03.1986. Thus, sale deeds in favour of review applicants are after 01.10.1975 but before 25.03.1986 and, therefore, hit by Section 8. 16. In this situation, Section 10 (1) comes into picture. It reads as under :- “10(1): If - (a) any person after 4th day of August,1959 but before the appointed day, transfers or partitions any land in anticipation of, or order to avoid or defeat, the objects of this Act, or (b) any land is transferred or partitioned in contravention of the provisions of Section 8, then, in calculating the ceiling area which that person is entitled to hold, the area so transferred or partitioned shall be taken into consideration, and land exceeding the ceiling area so calculated shall be deemed to be in excess of the ceiling area for that holding – notwithstanding that the land remaining with him may not in fact be in excess of the ceiling area. If by reason of such transfer or partition the person’s holding is less than the area so calculated to be in excess of the ceiling area, then all his land shall be deemed to be surplus land; and out of 6the land so transferred or partitioned and in possession of his transferee (unless such land is liable to forfeiture under the provisions of subsection (3)) land to the extent of such deficiency shall, subject to rules made in that behalf, also be deemed to be surplus land – notwithstanding that the holding of the transferee may not in fact be in excess of the ceiling area. “Thus, as explained above, in light of this provision and Rule 4 supra, out of land transferred by her and in possession of transferee, land to the extent of deficiency only can be treated to be surplus land. The sale deeds cannot be viewed as void. Here, that inquiry and that exercise has not been undertaken at all. 17. We, therefore, find substance in contention of Adv. Gilda that there is apparent error and the grievance raised by review applicants has not been properly looked into by Divisional Commissioner or then learned single Judge of this Court or then by Division Bench while deciding LPAs. 18. The fact that review applicants are even today in possession, is apparent. Hence, we quash and set aside the orders dated 16.02.1993 passed by Divisional Commissioner in their Revisions mentioned supra and restore the Revisions back to file, to find out correct factual position and also to ascertain whether in terms of Section 10(1) read with Rule 4 supra, entire land or then part thereof in their possession needs to be included in retention statement of Leelabai and can be deemed to be surplus land to make up for deficiency. 19. Accordingly, we allow Review Applications. The order dated 16.02.1993 passed by Division Commissioner in Revision Nos. No.2/60-A(5)/90-91 of Mouza Khairi Donoda and Revision No.3/60-A (5) 90-91 of Mouza Khairi Donoda; judgment of learned single Judge of this Court dated 12.10.1993 in Writ Petition Nos. 2284/1993 and 2285/1993 and Division Bench order dated 30th July 1999 in LPA Nos. 172 and 171 both of 1993 are quashed and set aside. 20. Review Applications are allowed and disposed of. No costs.