Bombay High Court
Ambadas S/O Rajaram Pawar And ... vs Rameshwar S/O Rajaram More And ... on 5 July, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp5777.15.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5777 OF 2015
PETITIONERS: 1. Ambadas S/o Rajaram Pawar, Age -
Major, Occupation - Farmer,
2. Bhanudas S/o Rajaram pawar, Age -
Major, Occupation - Farmer,
Both R/o village Chandas, Tahsil
Malegaon, District - Washim.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Rameshwar S/o Rajaram More, Age -
ig Major, Occupation - Farmer,
2. Sampat S/o Rajuji Pawar, Age -
Major, occupation - Farmer,
3. Ashok S/o Sampat Pawar, Age -
Major, Occupation - Farmer,
4. Gokul S/o Bhanudas Pawar, Age -
Major, occupation - Farmer,
All R/o village Chandas, Tahsil
Malegaon, District - Washim.
5. Sub Divisional officer, District
Washim.
6. Naib Tahsildar, District Washim.
Shri Amol Jaltare, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sameer Sohoni, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri K. l. Dharmadhikari, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.5 & 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 05
th JULY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
wp5777.15.odt 2/3
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
20-6-2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in proceedings
under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1905 (for short, the
said Act) whereby revision application preferred by the petitioners
has been dismissed.
3. Pursuant to an application moved by the respondent
nos.1 to 4 before the Tahsildar, the Circle Officer directed
inspection of the disputed site. After inspection of the same, the
Tahsildar by treating the proceedings as being filed under Section
5 of the said Act allowed the application and directed the
petitioners to remove the obstruction that was caused. This order
came to be challenged by preferring a revision application under
Section 23 of the said Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer. By the
impugned order, this revision application has been dismissed.
4. It is not necessary to enter into the merits of the
adjudication as undertaken by the Sub Divisional Officer in view of
the fact that this Court in Bija s/o Maroti Hatwar vs. Kisan s/o
Chirkut Padole and another 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 282 has held that the
Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the revision
application under Section 23 of the said Act. Though it is sought to
be urged by the petitioners that even the initial proceedings
entertained by the Tahsildar were not maintainable, said aspect
wp5777.15.odt 3/3
can be agitated before the Collector in proceedings under Section
23 of the said Act.
5. In view of aforesaid, the order dated 20-6-2014 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside on the ground that the
said authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. If
the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 3-6-2013 passed
by the Naib Tahsildar, it is open for them to challenge the said
order by filing a revision application before the Collector under
Section 23 of the said Act. If such proceedings are filed within a
period of four weeks from today, the question of limitation shall
not come in the way of the petitioners in those proceedings. It is
clarified that this Court has not examined the dispute on merits
and the impugned order is set aside on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. The respective contentions are kept open. The writ
petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
