Bombay High Court
Vishal S/O Vijay Harde vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 23 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
2024:BHC-NAG:985-DB
65-wp7469.23.odt
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7469 OF 2023
Ashish Gopal Dandikwar -Vs.- State of Maharashtra and others
WRIT PETITION NO. 6490 OF 2023
Vishal Vijay Harde -Vs.- The State of Maharashtra and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.T.H.Bewali, counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs.Shamsi Haider, AGP for the respondents-State.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 23RD JANUARY, 2024
In both these petitions the order dated
29/08/2023, imposing penalty under Section 48(7) and (8)
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short
'MLR Code') has been questioned on the ground that the
same has been imposed by the Naib Tahsildar and not by
the Tahsildar as required under Section 48(7) and (8) of
the MLR Code. It is contended that the person, who signed
the impugned orders, was the Naib Tahsildar at that point
of time and therefore, had no jurisdiction. The learned
counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment in Abdul
Razik s/o Abdul Rashid and another v. State of
Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.4726 of 2017,
decided on 21/11/2016, in support of his contention.
2. The learned AGP opposes and contends that since
KHUNTE
65-wp7469.23.odt
the Tasildar, Gadchiroli at that point of time was deputed to
attend the Development Board Meeting organized at Pune
on 28th and 29th August, 2023, he was granted leave and in
his place the Naib Tahsildar was put in charge. It is
contended that this is in pursuance to the provisions of
Section 10(b) of the MLR Code and therefore, no fault can
be found with the impugned orders on this ground.
3. Section 10 of the MLR Code reads as under -
"10. If a Collector or Tahsildar is disabled
from performing his duties or for any reason vacates his
office or leaves his jurisdiction or dies--
(a) the Additional Collector, and if there be no
Additional Collector, the Assistant or Deputy Collector of
the highest rank in the district,
(b) the Additional Tahsildar, and if there be no
Additional Tahsildar, the Naib-Tahsildar or the senior
most subordinate Revenue Officer in the taluka,
shall, unless other provision has been made by the State
Government, succeed temporarily to the office of the
Collector, or as the case may be, of the Tahsildar and
shall be held to be the Collector or Tahsildar under this
Code, until the Collector, or Tahsildar resumes charge of
his district or taluka, or until such time as a successor is
duly appointed and takes charge of his appointment.
Explanation.--An officer whose principal office is
different from that of an Assistant Collector, and who is
working as an Assistant Collector for special purposes
only, shall not be deemed as an Assistant for the
purposes of this section."
A perusal of the above provision would indicate
that in a case a Collector, or a Tahsildar is (i) disabled from
performing his duties or, (ii) for any reason vacates his
office or, (iii) leaves his jurisdiction or, (iv) dies, then in
case it is a Tahsildar, the Additional Tahsildar, and if there
be no Additional Tahsildar, the Naib Tahsildar or the Senior
KHUNTE
65-wp7469.23.odt
Most Sub-ordinate Revenue Officer in Taluka shall succeed
temporarily to the office of the Tahsildar and shall be held
to be the Tahsildar under the Code until the Tahsildar
resumes charge or successor is appointed and takes charge.
4. This would clearly indicate that for the duration
for which the Tahsildar is absent or on leave, or on
deputation, or sent to attend any meetings, as is the case in
the present matter, in absence of the Additional Tahsildar,
which was the case in the present matter as nothing has
been pointed out to indicate that there was any Additional
Tahsildar appointed during that duration, the Naib
Tahsildar succeeds to the office of the Tahsildar and
function as such and therefore, for all the purpose of
implementation of the provisions of the MLR Code
including Section 48(7) and (8) becomes the Tahsildar.
5. In Abdul Razik s/o Abdul Rashid and another v.
State of Maharashtra and others (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, though a contrary view
has been taken however what is material to note is that the
provisions of Section 10(b) of the MLR Code have not been
brought to the notice of the Court and therefore, does not
consider that position of law and therefore cannot be held
to cover the field.
6. In that view of the matter, since on the facts as
indicated from the communication dated 24/08/2023
(pg.23) in Writ Petition No.7469 of 2023, the Tahsildar was
to attend the meeting for the duration as referred above in
KHUNTE
65-wp7469.23.odt
view of Section 10(b) of the MLR Code, the Naib Tahsildar
succeeded to the office of the Tahsildar and therefore, any
orders passed by him in that capacity cannot be faulted
with. In view of this position, both the petitions are
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT.M.S.JAWALKAR,J) (AVINASH G.GHAROTE,J)
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/01/2024 17:24:44
KHUNTE
