Bombay High Court
Bachhulal @ Narayandas S/O ... vs Mohan Bhagwatrao Thakare, ... on 8 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp757.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETIT I ON NO.
7
57
/201
6
1. Bachhulal @ Narayandas S/o Rambilas
Rathi, aged 58 Yrs.
2. Smt. Laxmibai W/o Bachhulal @ Narayandas
Rathi, aged 48 Yrs.
Both Cultivators/Agriculturist,
R/o Nimbhi, Tah. Morshi,
Distt. Amravati. ..
Petitioner
s .
..VS..
1. Mohan Bhagwatrao Thakare,
aged 33 Yrs., Cultivator.
2. Smt. Chandrakala w/o Bhagwatrao
Thakare, aged 68 Yrs., Cultivator.
Both R/o Nimbhi, Tah. Morshi,
Distt. Amravati.
3. Vinod Namdeorao Thakare,
aged 49 Yrs., Cultivator,
R/o Nimbhi, Tah. Morshi,
Distt. Amravati.
4. Smt. Rukhmabai Rameshrao Kale,
aged 63 Yrs., Household,
R/o Khambit Belora, Tah. Ashti,
Distt. Wardha.
5. Smt. Nanibai Madhukarrao Dive,
aged about 73 Yrs., Cultivator,
R/o Bramhanwada (Dive),
Tah. Morshi, Distt. Amravati. Respondents.
..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioners.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 8.7.2016.
O RAL JUDGMENT
1. Though the respondent No.4 was served none appeared for him and
2 wp757.16
therefore, by the order dated 1st April, 2016 this Court directed issuance of fresh
notice. Though served, the respondents have not put in appearance and no one
appeared for them on 1st July, 2016. The matter was adjourned to enable the
respondents to defend the matter. Today again, none appeared for the respondents
when the matter is called out. Heard Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioners.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3.
The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
rejecting their revision filed under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. In the
judgment given in the case of Bija s/o Maroti Hatwar V/s. Kisan s/o Chirkut Padole
and another reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 282, this Court has recorded that the
revisional powers under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act are required to be
exercised by the Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot exercise the
revisional powers. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
4. Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside.
(ii) The revision filed by the petitioner is remitted to Collector, Amravati.
(iii) The Collector, Amravati shall himself hear the revision application or shall make
it over to any Authority competent to decide the revision application under Section 23
of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906.
(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Collector, Amravati on 5th August, 2016
and abide by further instructions/orders in the matter.
3 wp757.16
(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(vi) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
