Kashinath Mahadeorao Tankar vs Narayan Shivaji Kotangale
2016 Latest Caselaw 3578 Bom

                                                                                        wp3752.15
                                                   1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                                        
                                 NAGPUR.

                      WRIT    PETITION     NO.   3752     OF     2015




                                                                
    Kashinath Mahadeorao Tankar,




                                                               
    aged 70 yrs. Occu.Agriculurist,
    R/o Majri-Mhasla, Tq.Nandgaon
    Khandeshwar, Distt.Amravati.                                             PETITIONER.




                                                
                                                VERSUS
                              
    1] Narayan Shivaji Kotangale,
    aged 60 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist,
    R/o Majri-Mhasla, Tq.Nandgaon
                             
    Khandeshwar, Distt.Amravati.

    2]The Tahsildar, Nandgaon
    Khandeswar, Distt. Amravati. 
      


    3] The Sub Divisional Officer,
    Chandur Railway, Tah.Chandur,
   



    Distt. Amravati.                                                         RESPONDENTS.

Shri N. B. Raut, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri H. M. Sakhare, Advocate for the respondent no.1.

Shri S. M. Bhagde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

                              CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               
                                      Dated    :   JULY  04, 2016.





    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the

parties.

2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2015 passed

by the Sub-Divisional Officer in appellate proceedings under the Mamlatdar

wp3752.15

Courts Act, 1906. By said order the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging

the order passed by the Tahsildar allowing the application filed by the

respondent no.1 has been dismissed.

3] Shri N. B. Raut, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that inview of law laid down by this Court in Bija Maroti Hatwar Vs. Kisan

Chirkut Padole and ano. 2015(1) Maharashtra law Journal 282, the

jurisdiction to entertain the revision application under Section 23 of the Act

of 1906 lies with the Collector or any officer to whom the powers are

delegated. He submits that in the aforesaid judgment it has been held that

the Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision

application.

4] Shri H. M. Sakhare, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1

and Shri S. M. Bhagde, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

respondent nos. 2 and 3 do not dispute the aforesaid legal position.

Considering the judgment of this Court in Bija Maroti Hatwar (supra) it is

clear that the jurisdiction to entertain the revision application was with the

Collector or an Officer authorised by him. The Sub-Divisional Officer

therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application and pass

the impugned order.

5] In view of aforesaid the order dated 24.03.2015 passed by the

Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside as it has been passed without having any

jurisdiction to entertain the revision application.

6] The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of the Tahsildar

wp3752.15

dated 27.07.2011 by filing revision application before the Collector. If such

revision application is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the

Collector shall consider the period of delay after taking into account the

pendency of the revision petition before Sub Divisional Officer as well as the

pendency of the present writ petition from 23.06.2015 till date.

7] The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs. Order accordingly.

                                  ig                     JUDGE
    svk