Shri Govind Rambaksh Jadhao vs Honarable State Minister, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4546 Bom

wp.1634.16.jud                             1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                     WRIT PETITION NO.1634 OF 2016


Shri Govind Rambaksh Jadhao,
Aged about 65 years,
R/o. Seloo (Buj), Tq. Pusad,
District Yavatmal.                                                     .... Petitioner

       -- Versus -

01]    Honarable State Minister,
       Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
       Mumbai : 32.

02]    Additional Collector, Yavatmal
       District Yavatmal.

03]    Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal.

04]    Revenue Officer, Pusad,
       District Yavatmal.

05]    Talathi, Vasantnagar,
       Tq. Pusad, District Yavatmal.

06]    Tahsildar, Pusad,
       Tq. Pusad, District Yavatmal.

07]    Santosh Tolaram Rathod,
       R/o Kopra, Tq. Pusad,
       District Yavatmal.                                        .... Respondents


Shri P.P. Thakare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri H.D. Dubey, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Shri R.B. Dhore, Advocate for Respondent No.7.

                CORAM           : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
                DATE            : JULY 14, 2017.




 ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2017 23:56:20 :::
 wp.1634.16.jud                        2


ORAL JUDGMENT :-


                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.



02]             This petition takes an exception to the order dated

31/07/2015 passed by respondent no.1 thereby setting aside the

orders passed by lower authorities and allowing mutation entry

to be entered in the name of respondent no.7.



03]             Petitioner has challenged the order on the ground of

maintainability of revision under Section 258 of the Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code, 1966. The grievance of petitioner is that he

was never served with the notice of proceedings before

respondent no.1 in advance and first notice was served on him

on 04/05/2015 in the evening. He submits that for want of time,

he could not appear before respondent no.1.



04]             With the assistance of the learned Counsel for

petitioner, this Court has gone through the impugned order. It is

mentioned in the order that petitioner was not present and did

not file his submissions, though initially in the order, presence of




 ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2017 23:56:20 :::
 wp.1634.16.jud                            3


all the parties have been shown. Apparently, order came to be

passed without hearing the petitioner.


05]             In this premise, this Court finds that the following

order would meet the ends of justice.

                                   ORDER

i. Impugned order dated 31/07/2015 passed by

respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside.

ii. Matter is remanded to respondent no.1 for fresh

decision in accordance with the law as expeditiously

as possible and preferably within a period of three

months.

iii. Parties to appear before respondent no.1 on 7th

August, 2017.

iv. Writ Petition No.1634/2016 stands disposed of in

above terms with no order as to costs.

*sdw                                            (Kum. Indira Jain.J.)