Bombay High Court
Uma Dhupaji Gore And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 3 March, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
wp.7001-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7001 OF 2018
Uma s/o. Dhupaji Gore,
Age : 90 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Post Rajuri, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar
and others ..Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
and others ..Respondents
----
Mr.R.A.Tambe, Advocate for petitioners
Mr.S.P.Tiwari, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 5
Mr.D.R.Korde, Advocate for respondent nos.6 to 12
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 04, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 03, 2021
ORDER :-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated
16.01.2018 passed by passed by the Additional Collector,
2 wp.7001-2018
Ahmednagar, in Revision Application No.12 of 2018. By the
impugned order, the Revision Application preferred by the
petitioners herein came to be dismissed in limine. The
Additional Collector observed that in view of Section 252(b) of
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (M.L.R.C.), no Revision
lies against the order passed in the Revision.
FACTS:-
3. The petitioners had filed R.T.S. Revision No.280 of
2016 on 13.10.2016 before the Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.),
Shirdi, against certification of mutation entry no.11847. The
S.D.O., vide order dated 24.11.2017, dismissed the Revision
Application. The petitioners, therefore, preferred second
Revision Application, being R.T.S. Revision No. 12 of 2018, to
the Additional Collector. Said Revision application has been
dismissed at admission stage itself vide order dated
16.01.2018. The petitioners are, therefore, before this Court.
4. Mr.Tambe, learned counsel for the petitioners,
would submit that the Additional Collector did not give the
3 wp.7001-2018
petitioners an opportunity of hearing. He could have allowed
the petitioners to convert the Revision Application into an
appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, urged
for setting aside the impugned order.
5. Mr.Korde, learned counsel for respondent nos.6
to 12, would, on the other hand, supports the impugned order.
He relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani Vs. State of Maharashtra and
ors., 2015(6)Mh.L.J. 915.
6. For deciding the issue involved in this petition, the
scheme as regards appeal and revision under the M.L.R.C., is
required to be examined. Chapter XIII of M.L.R.C. speaks of
appeals, revision and review. Section 247 speaks of appeal
and appellate authorities. It reads thus:-
247. Appeal and appellate authorities. -
(1) In the absence of any express
provisions of the Code, or of any law for
the time being in force to the contrary, an
appeal shall lie from any decision or order
passed by a revenue or survey officer
4 wp.7001-2018
specified in column I of the Schedule E
under this Code or any other law for the
time being in force to the officer specified
in column 2 of that Schedule whether or
not such decision or order may itself have
been passed on appeal from the decision or
order of the officer specified in column I of
the said Schedule:
Provided that, in no case the number of
appeals shall exceed two.
(2) .....
Section 249 pertains to appeal against review or revision.
It reads as under :-
249. Appeal against review or revision. -
(1) An order passed in review varying or
reversing any order shall be appealable in
the like manner as an original decision or
order.
(2) An order passed in revision varying or
reversing any order shall be appealable as
if it were an order passed by the revisional
authority in appeal.
Section 252 reads thus :-
252. Appeal shall not be against certain
orders. -
No appeal shall lie from an order-
(a) admitting an appeal or an application
for review under Section 251;
5 wp.7001-2018
(b) rejecting an application for revision or
review; or
(c) granting or rejecting an application for
stay.
7. From reading of Sections 249 and 252 of M.L.R.C., it
is clear that there is a remedy of appeal against the order
passed in Revision varying or reversing any order. However,
there is no remedy of appeal against rejection of application for
Revision or Review.
8. In the case in hand, the Revision Application moved
by the petitioners has been rejected by the S.D.O. The remedy
of appeal is, therefore, not available against the decision of the
S.D.O. since Section 252(b) bars the remedy of appeal.
9. The petitioners had preferred Revision Application
No.12 of 2018 against the decision of the S.D.O. in a Revision
itself. Section 257 of the M.L.R.C. speaks of the power of the
State Government and of certain Revenue and Survey Officers
to call for and examine record and proceedings of subordinate
officers. Section 257(1) reads as under:-
6 wp.7001-2018
257. Power of State Government and of
certain revenue and survey officers to call
for and examine records and proceedings
of subordinate officers. -
(1) The State Government and any revenue
or survey officer, not inferior in rank to an
Assistant or Deputy Collector, or a
Superintendent of Land Records, in their
respective departments, may call for and
examine the record of any inquiry or the
proceedings of any subordinate revenue or
survey officer, for the purpose of satisfying
itself or himself, as the case may be, as the
legality or propriety of any decision or
order passed, and as to the regularity of
the proceedings of such officer.
Sub-section (4) of Section 257 bars remedy of revision against
an order issued under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 257 by
any Officer referred to therein. It, however, saves power of the
State Government to modify, annul or reverse any such order
issued under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 257 of M.L.R.C.
10. From reading of the aforesaid provisions, it would be
crystal clear that the order passed by the Officer referred to in
sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 257 of M.L.R.C., cannot be
challenged in Revision before any other Officer except before
7 wp.7001-2018
State Government. As such, no fault can be found with the
order impugned in this Writ Petition.
11. The Writ Petition, therefore, fails. The petitioners
may challenge the order passed by the S.D.O. in Revision
before the State Government. With the aforesaid observations,
the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
