Bombay High Court
Shantaram Namdeo Ghule, And ... vs Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon ... on 18 December, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp5169.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5169/2015
Shantaram Namdeo Ghule and another
..Vs..
Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Jamod and others
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Smt. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S.P. Deshpande, Adll. G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri A.S. Ambatkar, Advocate h/f Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 6.
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 18.12.2017.
Heard.
The petitioners have challenged the order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by which revision
application filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 6 under
Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 is
allowed.
The petitioners had filed an application under
Section 5 of the Act of 1906 which was allowed by the
Naib-Tahsildar, Sangrampur by order dated 6th May,
2013. The Naib-Tahsildar upheld the claim of the
petitioners regarding right of way and directed the
respondent Nos.2 to 6 that they should not obstruct the
present petitioners from using the way as claimed by
them. This order, passed by Naib-Tahsildar, was
challenged by the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in revision
under Section 23(2) of the Act of 1906. The revision
application is allowed by the impugned order.
2 wp5169.15
The challenge on behalf of the petitioners is
that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the revision application. The
petitioners rely on the judgment given by this Court 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.
The learned Advocate for the respondent
Nos.2 to 6 and the learned Adll. G.P. have pointed out
the order dated 28th February, 1961 issued by the then
Collector, Buldhana delegating powers conferred on him
under Section 23(2) of the Act of 1906 to the
Sub-Divisional Officers of the district, to be exercised
within the area of their respective jurisdiction. It is
submitted that Section 2(34) of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code defines "Sub-Divisional Officer" to mean
an Assistant or Deputy Collector who is placed in-charge
of one or more sub-divisions of a district and Section
23(2A) of the Act of 1906 enables the Collector to
delegate the powers conferred on him to any Assistant
Collector, Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner
subordinate to him and as the Collector delegated the
powers exercisable by him under Section 23(2) of the Act
of 1906 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, the challenge as
raised on behalf of the petitioners is without any merit.
I find that the powers exercisable by the
Collector under Section 23(2) of the Act of 1906 were
delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer by the order
dated 28th February, 1961 and this is permissible as per
Section 23(2A) of the Act of 1906 and, therefore, it
3 wp5169.15
cannot be said that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no
authority to entertain and decide the revision application
filed by the petitioners.
The petitioners have not raised any other
challenge in the writ petition.
In view of the above, the writ petition is
dismissed.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their
own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
