Bombay High Court
Hausabai Shahurao Argade vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 30 January, 2018
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/1230/1998
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1230 OF 1998
Smt. Hausabai Shahurao Argade,
Aged 48 years, Occ. Household
and Agriculture, r/o Shingnapur,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary to the
Government of Maharastra in
Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Collector, Ahmednagar.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sangamner,Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. The Revenue Circle Inspector,
Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.
5. The Talathi,
Sajja Dhandarphal (Bk.),
Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.
6. Mohan Bajaba Gorde
Aged 60 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Choudhari S.S.
AGP for Respondents 1 to 5 : Shri Badakh V.S.
Respondent 6 : Abated vide order dated 28.6.2004.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: January 30, 2018
...
WP/1230/1998
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri
Choudhari, learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP
on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. The Writ Petition stood abated
as against respondent No.6.
2. The contention of the petitioner is primarily based on two
issues. Firstly, whether the revenue entries resulting into mutation
entry No.10541 of village Dhandarphal by the Talathi can be subject
matter of revisional jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer under
Section 257 (1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ("Code")
and secondly, whether the petitioner was not heard by the Sub
Divisional Officer, while passing the impugned order dated
30.12.1997.
3. After considering the submissions of the learned Advocates
and on going through Section 257(1) and Schedule 'E' under Section
247 of the Code, it is obvious that the authorities mentioned in sub-
section (1) can call for and examine the records of any enquiry or
proceedings in their respective departments, so as to assess the
legality and/or propriety of any decision and cause scrutiny for the
purpose of satisfying the concerned revenue authority as regards the
WP/1230/1998
regularity of the proceedings by the subordinate revenue officer. As
such, the Sub Divisional Officer, who is normally a Deputy Collector
in this State ( Read : Judgment dated 13.10.2017 in Writ Petition
No. 7839 of 2017 - Kashiram Asaram Ghadge and others Vs. Ramdas
Bhanudas Pund and another along with other Writ Petitions), the
said authority would, therefore, have the power to cause such a
revision in the matter.
4. Shri Choudhari has, however, canvassed that any such
authority exercising revisional jurisdiction, either suo motu or at the
behest of any aggrieved party, cannot himself pass such an order in
any matter in which a formal enquiry has been held and he has to
submit the record with his opinion to the Collector, who can then
pass an order on behalf of the State. This contention is left open to
be considered in the light of the orders and directions that I would
be issuing, keeping in view, the second proviso below Section 257.
5. In so far as a right of hearing is concerned, Shri Choudhari is
right in contending that no such revenue officer, acting on behalf of
the State, can vary or reverse any order affecting the rights of the
private individuals / persons without giving them an opportunity of
hearing in the light of the first proviso below Section 257.
WP/1230/1998
6. Considering the above, the petitioner partly succeeds in this
matter. The Writ Petition is, therefore, partly allowed and the
impugned order passed by respondent No.3, dated 30.12.1997 is
quashed and set aside and the Revision Application No.34 of 1997 is
restored to the file of respondent No.3 for causing a rehearing in the
matter.
7. The petitioner agrees to appear before respondent No.3 on
9.2.2018 at 11.00 am. Formal notice to the petitioner, therefore,
need not be issued. Respondent No.3, however, shall consider that
one of the respondents to this matter, namely, Mohan Bajaba Gorde
has passed away and hence, if found necessary, respondent No.3
shall issue notices to the legal heirs of deceased Mohan in this
matter.
8. The third respondent shall decide the said proceedings after
hearing all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible and
preferably on/or before 31.5.2018. Needless to state, whether
respondent No.3 himself will pass an order or whether the report is
to be furnished to the authority above the Sub Divisional Officer
under Section 257, is left open for respondent No.3 to consider. All
contentions of the litigating sides are, therefore, kept open, except
the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer
WP/1230/1998
in invoking his powers under Section 257(1), since that issue has
been settled in this judgment.
9. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
