Hanuman S/O Mahadu Aru vs Bandu S/O Mahadu Aru
2017 Latest Caselaw 8622 Bom

                                                     1              WP3768.2015.odt

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

                               Writ Petition No. 3768/2015

 Hanuman S/o Mahadu Aru, 
 Aged 57 years, Occ. Cultivator, 
 R/o Rithad, Tah. Risod, Dist. Washim

                                                          ..... PETITIONER

                                 ...V E R S U S...

 Bandu S/o Mahadu Aru, 
 Aged 47 years, Occ. Cultivator, 
 R/o Rithad, Tah. Risod, Dist. Washim

                                                          ... RESPONDENT

 =====================================
                    Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner
                               None for the respondent
 =====================================

                                              CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
                                              DATED :- 10    November
                                                          th
                                                                     , 
                                                                       201
                                                                          7
                                                                            


 ORAL JUDGMENT :-


 1]             None appears for the respondent though served. Heard 

 Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner.



 2]             Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 



 3]             The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Sub-

 Divisional Officer by which the revision application filed by him 




::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2017                             ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2017 00:34:13 :::
                                                  2                 WP3768.2015.odt

 under   Section   23   (2A)   of   the   Mamlatdars'   Courts   Act,   1906   is 

 dismissed. Relying on the judgment given by this Court in the case 

 of Bija S/o Maroti Hatwar vs Kisan S/o Chirkut Padole and another  

 reported   in   2015(1)   Mh.L.J   282  it   is   submitted   that   the   Sub-

 Divisional   Officer   had   no   jurisdiction   to   decide   the   revision 

 application   and   the   impugned   order   is   illegal.   The   submissions 

 made on behalf of the petitioner are required to be accepted in 

 view of the above referred judgment.  

                Hence, the following order is passed:-



                                           O R D E R

1] The impugned order passed by the Sub-

Divisional Officer is set aside.

2] The matter is remitted to Collector,

Washim. The Collector, Washim may either decide

the revision application himself or make it over to

any Officer competent to decide the revision

application as per Section 23 (2A) of the Mamlatdars'

Courts Act, 1906.

                                               3                WP3768.2015.odt




                   3]          The   petitioner   shall   appear   before   the 

Collector, Washim on 18/12/2017 at 11:00 a.m and

abide by further instructions/orders in the matter.

4] The Authority which would be taking up

the revision application for decision, shall dispose the

revision application according to law after ensuring

that the notice of revision application is served on the

respondent.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

A n s a r i