Changdev Shivram Botre vs The Sub Divisional Officer, Khed ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11087 Bom

              Chitra Sonawane                                1/4    29- WP 10152 of 2022 (copy)


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           Digitally signed
           by CHITRA                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CHITRA     SANJAY
SANJAY     SONAWANE
SONAWANE   Date:
           2022.10.20
                                       WRIT PETITION NO.10152 OF 2022
           14:58:43 +0530




              Changdev Shivram Botre                                .....Petitioner

                                V/s.

              The Sub-Divisional Officer,
              Khed Sub-Division, Rajguru Nagar,
              and Ors.                                              ....Respondents

                                                  -----

              Mr.Akshay Petkar a/w Aniket Malu a/w Devashish Godbole a/w Pranav
              Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner.

              Mr.Pavon Patil a/w Nitin Jagtap for respondent nos.4 to 6 and 9-A to
              9(E).

              Mrs.Madhubala Kajale AGP for State.

                                            CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

DATED : 19TH OCTOBER, 2022.

P.C. :

1. Tahasildar, Khed, Rajgurunagar in exercise of powers under Section

5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act,1906 directed respondents to remove

encroachment caused on the access/road passing through Gat no.258-B

and 244-A.

2. Correctness of this order was questioned in the revision by

respondents before Sub-divisional Officer, Rajgurunagar.

Chitra Sonawane 2/4 29- WP 10152 of 2022 (copy)

3. Vide order dated 14.7.2022 the Sub-divisional Officer directed to

the parties to revision, to maintain status-quo although petitioners caveat

was on record. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the said order, this petition is

filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of

this Court in the case of Prashant Prabhakar Vs. S.D.O. passed in

Reference 2019 Supreme Bombay 1161. In the said judgment, the

reference Court has held, delegation of power by the Collector under Sub-

section (2-A) of Section 23 of the Mamalatdars' Courts Act to the Deputy

Collector or Asstt. Collector, who is working as the Sub Divisional Officer

of the concerned division of the District, is correct, legal and proper.

Petitioner argued that the Tahasildar, Khed, Pune is neither Asstt.

Collector nor Deputy Collector and therefore, was not competent to

exercise jurisdiction u/s 5 of the Mamalatdars' Courts Act,1906. Let this

fact be verified by the Government Pleader and submit on the next date.

5. Be that, as it may, it appears from the petition and reply filed by the

respondent, that Additional Collector, Pune vide administrative order

dated 07.7.2022 made over proceedings, then pending before Tahasildar,

Khed, Rajgurunagar to Tahasildar Ambegaon. Learned Counsel for the

contesting respondents, on instructions, submits that order of Additional

Collector dated 07.7.2022 was brought to the notice of Tahasildar, Khed, Chitra Sonawane 3/4 29- WP 10152 of 2022 (copy)

Rajgurunagar. It is submitted that, inspite of order dated 7.7.2022

passed by the Additional Collector, the Tahasildar overlooked it and

issued order u/s 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, purportedly passed on

6.7.2022. In other words, according to the respondents, order was given

a date of 06.07.2022 though it was prepared on 7.7.2022 or at

subsequent time. It is one of the grounds taken in the revision by the

respondents. The allegations are serious. If that be so, let the petitioner

implead Miss Vaishali Waghmare, Tahasildar, Khed Rajgurunagar as party

respondent.

6. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

7. Issue notice to added respondent returnable on 25.11.2022.

8. Added respondent shall file affidavit-reply to the allegations made

by the respondents as stated above.

9. In any case, revision against order dated 6.7.2022 is pending before

Sub-divisional officer, Khed, Rajgurunagar.

10. In consideration of facts of the case, let the Sub-divisional officer

decide the revision on its own merits, expeditiously and in accordance

with law.

11. Till the Sub-divisional officer concludes revision, the parties shall

maintain the status-quo. All contentions of parties to revision are

expressly kept open.

Chitra Sonawane 4/4 29- WP 10152 of 2022 (copy)

12. List the matter for further consideration on 25.11.2022.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)