Smt. Vatsalabai Keshaorao ... vs Prabhu Gadiji Khade And 2 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 3031 Bom

                                                                                                                                            wp3080-15




                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                 1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 




                                                                                                      
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                                             WRIT PETITION No.3080 OF 2015




                                                                                                     
    Smt. Vatsalabai Keshaorao Dehankar,
    aged Major, Occu. Agriculturist, 
    r/o Bramhanwada, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.                                                    ...                     ...          Petitioner.

                        ..Versus..




                                                                               
    1. Prabhu Gadiji Khade,                      
       aged Major, r/o Nanda, Post Lonkhiri
       Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur. 
                                                
    2. State of Maharashtra,
       through its Collector, Nagpur, 
       District Nagpur. 
        

    3. The Divisional Commissioner,
       Divisional Office, Nagpur.                                                             ...                     ...    Respondents. 
     



    .......................................................................................................................................................

Mr. S.S. Ghate, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Ahirkar, AGP for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

.......................................................................................................................................................

                                                            CORAM                 :  A.S. CHANDURKAR, 
                                                                                                         J.
                                                            DATED                 :  20 th
                                                                                            JUNE,
                                                                                                  2016.

    ORAL JUDGMENT.





                              Rule.   Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     Heard   finally   with

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The order dated 20.12.2014 passed by the respondent no.3 is

under challenge in the present writ petition. One of the grounds urged is

.....2/-

wp3080-15

that there are no reasons assigned by the said Authority while passing the

impugned order. Another ground raised is that the proceedings were heard

by some other Authority and the order was passed by another Authority.

Though the learned counsel for the respondents has sought to justify the

impugned order, its perusal indicates that there is no reason whatsoever

which is assigned while passing the same. In that view of the matter, it is not

necessary to enter into the merits of the controversy. The impugned order is

set aside on the ground that it is sans reasons. It was necessary for the

respondent no.3 to have assigned reasons while deciding the revision

application in view of the fact that the said exercise was being conducted due

to the earlier round of litigation in which the proceedings were remanded by

order dated 17.4.2013 in W.P. No. 1562/2013.

In view of the aforesaid, the following order is passed:

(i) The order dated 17th December, 2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Departmental Appeal) is quashed and set aside for want of

reasons.

(ii) The proceedings are remanded to the respondent no. 3 for being decided afresh in accordance with law.

(iii) It is clarified that this Court has not examined the correctness of the findings recorded by the Authority in the order dated 17.12.2014.

.....3/-

wp3080-15

(iv) To enable adjudication of the revision application, the parties

shall appear before the respondent no.3 on 11th July, 2016.

(v) Writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

    (vi)              No costs. 




                                                                
                                                                        JUDGE 




                                                    
    Hirekhan
                                    
                                   
       
    






                                                                                                  ...../-