Vijay Prabhakar Dhake And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 400 Bom

                                                                                 wp2466.17.doc
                                            1


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

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2466 OF 2017     

1         Vijay s/o Prabhakar Dhake
          age 47 years, occ. Agril
          r/o Kolhadi, Tq. Bodwad
          Dist. Jalgaon

2         Prabhakar s/o Zhama Dhake
          age 80 years, occ. Agril
          r/o as above.                                                .. PETITIONERS

VERSUS
 
1         The State of Maharashtra
          Through Sub-Divisional Officer
          Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon

2         The Tahsildar / Mamlatdar
          Tahsil Office, Bodwad, Tq. Bodwad
          Dist. Jalgaon

3         Bhaskar s/o Zama Dhake
          age 70 years, occ. Agril
          r/o Kolhadi, Tq. Bodwad
          Dist. Jalgaon.                                             .. RESPONDENTS


Mr.     K.B.   Jadhav,   advocate   holding   for   Mr.   G.B.   Kulkarni,   advocate   for 
petitioners.
Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, AGP for respondents no. 1 and 2.
                                                      =====

                                                  CORAM :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.  

                                                  DATE    :  2nd MARCH,  2017. 
 
ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned AGP for

respondents no. 1 and 2. There is no need to issue notice to respondent no.

3.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

wp2466.17.doc

3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the Sub-

Divisional Officer has no authority to deal with the application under

section 23(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 for which, he relies upon

the case of Ramesh Damu Patil Vs. Purushottam Imrao Chavan & Ors.,

2017(1) Mh.L.J. 818.

5. Learned AGP points out that petitioners themselves had invoked

revisional jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 23(2) of

the Act and, now, they have come before this Court only when they realised

that revisional application was dismissed by the learned Sub-Divisional

Officer.

6. So far as the law laid down in the case of Ramesh (supra) is

concerned, there can be no second opinion. Section 23(2) of the Act is also

very clear. It has conferred revisional powers upon the Collector and sub-

section 2(a) enables the Collector to delegate these powers to Assistant

Collector, Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner and, officer of the

designation Sub-Divisional Officer does not fall in any of those categories of

the officers. Therefore, revisional application under section 23(2) of the Act

ought not to have been filed by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional

Officer. Now, petitioners having realised that the learned Sub-Divisional

Officer has rejected the application, are disputing the jurisdiction of the

wp2466.17.doc

learned Sub-Divisional Officer on the specious ground that he has no

authority in law to decide the revision application. However, this was

known to the petitioners, in the first place itself. Petitioners ought not to

have invoked revisional powers before the learned Sub-Divisional officer and

ought to have approached the Collector or any authorised officer under

section 23(2)(A) of the Act. Since they did not do so, rather, chose to try and

test the revisional powers of the Sub-Divisional Officer, now it would not lie

in their mouth to say that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has gone

wrong in rejecting the revisional application. Therefore, the only remedy

that petitioners would have, if any, would be to approach the appropriate

authority under section 23(2) or 2(a) of the Act and, not this Court under

Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. If this petition is considered

here, it would amount to giving advantage to petitioners for their own wrong

deeds. There is no merit in this petition. Petition stands dismissed with

cost. Liberty to petitioners to approach appropriate authority, subject to law

of limitation. Rule discharged.

( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE

dyb