Patru Joguji Chalakh vs The Additional Commissioner, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6494 Bom

                                             1                                       WP4512.15.odt




                                                                                         
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.




                                                                
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 4512 OF 2015

    PETITIONER               : Patru Joguji Chalakh,




                                                               
                               Aged about 55 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
                               R/o Haldi, Post Chinchala,
                               Tahsil Mul, District Chandrapur.

                                              - VERSUS -




                                                
    RESPONDENTS              : 1] The Additional Commissioner,
                               ig Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

                                    2] The Sub Divisional Officer,
                             
                                       Chandrapur.

                                    3] Moreshwar S/o Donu Chalakh,
                                       Aged about 72 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
                                       R/o Haldi, Post Chinchala,
      


                                       Tah. Mul, District Chandrapur.
   



                                    4] Sukru S/o Vithu Chalakh,
                                       Aged about 80 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
                                       R/o Haldi, Post Chinchala,
                                       Tah. Mul, District Chandrapur.





                     -------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. R. M. Pande, Advocate for the petitioner
           Mr. N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
           Mr. R. R. Dawda, Advocate for the respondent nos.3 & 4
                      ------------------------------------------------------------





                     CORAM :    PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

                     DATE     :  NOVEMBER 17, 2016.


    ORAL JUDGMENT


                    Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     Considering  the

limited controversy, the petition is heard finally with the consent of the

2 WP4512.15.odt

learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission itself.

2] By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order

passed by respondent no.1 - Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division,

Nagpur, dated 03.05.2014 thereby rejecting the revision preferred by

the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent no.2 - Sub

Divisional Officer, Chandrapur, dated 30.06.2011.

3] Mr. Pande, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the respondent nos.3 and 4 herein had submitted an application

before the respondent no.2 - Sub Divisional Officer for correction in the

entries of 27.12.2005. The learned counsel by inviting my attention to

the order passed by the respondent no.2, dated 30.06.2011, submitted

that an exercise of re-measurement of the land was undertaken and

completed on 08.01.1984. The learned counsel submitted that the

respondent nos.3 and 4 approached the respondent no.2 authority

raising a grievance to re-measurement of 1984 in the year 2004 i.e.

nearly after 20 years and the respondent no.2 without affording any

opportunity to the petitioner passed the order dated 30.06.2011 thereby

allowing the application of respondent nos.3 and 4. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that a revision was preferred before

3 WP4512.15.odt

the respondent no.1 - Additional Commissioner against the order

passed by the respondent no.2-SDO. The revision was dismissed by the

impugned order dated 03.05.2014. It was the submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasons are assigned by the

respondent no.1-Additional Commissioner and only by referring to the

submissions and his opinion that the order passed by the lower

authority was calling no interference, dismissed the revision. The

learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent

no.1 - Additional Commissioner failed to consider the submission of the

petitioner in respect of non-grant of opportunity of hearing.

4] Per contra, Mr. Dawda, the learned counsel for the

respondent nos.3 and 4 vehemently submitted that though, an

opportunity of hearing was granted by the authority to the petitioner,

the petitioner himself failed to avail that opportunity. Though, the

learned counsel also made a submission in respect of the merits of the

revision application, it would not be necessary to go into the details of

the contentions and counter contentions as well as merits of the revision

application. Suffice to say that the order of the respondent no.1 -

Additional Commissioner neither refers to any reasons on which the

respondent no.1 was convinced nor reflect the fact that there was

4 WP4512.15.odt

application of mind by the respondent no.1 authority to arrive at a

conclusion that the order of respondent no.2-SDO required no

interference.

5] The learned counsel for the petitioner was justified in

relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (!) Bom.C.R.

929 in the case of Lokmanya Nagar Priyadarshini and others .vs.

State of Maharashtra and others. The learned counsel submitted that

though, this Court has framed certain parameters for deciding the stay

applications before the quasi-judicial authorities, these parameters

would equally apply in cases where the quasi-judicial authorities decide

the matters finally without assigning any reason or the order fails to

show application of mind by the authorities.

6] The learned counsel for the petitioner was justified in

submitting that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 only

refers to the submissions of the parties and he failed to appreciate the

ground of non-grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Though, the learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 made an

attempt to submit that an opportunity was granted to the petitioner and

the petitioner himself failed to avail that opportunity, the said fact is not

5 WP4512.15.odt

reflected in the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1-

Commissioner. If it was so, the respondent no.1-Additional

Commissioner was not prevented from referring to this fact when a

particular ground was raised by the petitioner.

7] Considering these aspects, I am of the opinion that the ends

of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order and

remitting the matter back to the respondent no.1 - Additional

Commissioner for decision afresh by giving equal opportunity of hearing

to the parties and with a direction to complete the exercise as

expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from the

date of appearance of the parties before him. The learned counsel for

the petitioner and respondent nos.3 and 4 undertakes that the parties

would appear before the respondent no.1 authority on 08.12.2016 and

would seek further dates of hearing or for submitting documents etc., if

so advised.

    8]              In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

                    (i)      The   order   dated   03.05.2014   passed   by   the

respondent no.1 - Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur

in Revision No. 1/S.V.S.R./Mouza Chak Kawadpeth/2012, is quashed

6 WP4512.15.odt

and set aside.

(ii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.1 -

Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur for deciding the

same afresh in accordance with law by giving equal opportunity to the

parties i.e. petitioner and the respondent nos.3 and 4. As the revision

was filed on 21.03.2012, the exercise of deciding the revision afresh by

the respondent no.1 is to be completed as expeditiously as possible and

preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of appearance

of the parties before him.

(iii) The parties i.e. petitioner and respondent nos.3 and 4

are directed to appear before the respondent no.1 - Additional

Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 08.12.2016.

(iv) The learned Assistant Government Pleader is directed

to send back the record and proceedings of the case to the respondent

no.1 - Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, which was

called in view of the order of this Court, dated 23.02.2016, as early as

possible,

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The writ

petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

JUDGE Diwale