Bombay High Court
Smt. Radha W/O Sanjay Talapelliwar And ... vs Ashok Tukdu Dhengre And Others on 7 January, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:217
-- 1 -- WP 5472.2019 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5472 OF 2019
1) Smt.Radha w/o Sanjay Talapelliwar
age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculturist
2) Shri Sanjay Naraynrao Talapelliwar .. Petitioners
age: 49 years, Occ: Service
Both R/o State Bank Colony, Sarni,
Tahsil: Sarni, District: Betul, Madhya
Pradesh
Versus
1) Ashok Tukdu Dhengre,
age : major, Occ : Agriculturist
2) Bhaurao Tukdu Dhengre,
age : major, Occ : Agriculturist
3) Smt. Leelabai Wasudeo Dhengre,
age: major, Occ: not known
4) Anupama Haribhau Dhengre,
age : major, Occ : Agriculturist
All 1 to 4 R/o Deodi (Gujar), .. Respondents
Post : Butibori, Tahsil and District
Nagpur
5) The Naib-Tahsildar, Umred
Office of Tahsildar, Umred,
Maharashtra
6) The Residence Deputy Collector,
Nagpur
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.S.Shukla, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. U.K.Bisen, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. S.V.Narale, Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos.5 & 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAGE 1 OF 5
-- 2 -- WP 5472.2019 (J).doc
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATED : JANUARY 07, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally,
with the consent of the learned counsel, appearing for the parties.
(2) The petitioners are challenging the orders dated
17/05/2019 and 29/06/2019 passed by respondent No.6, Deputy
Collector, Nagpur, which dismissed the revision preferred by the
petitioners and their subsequent application for restoration of revision.
(3) Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners, drew my
attention to the impugned order dated 17/05/2019 and submitted that
respondent No.6, Deputy Collector, without hearing the parties,
disposed of the revision on merit instead of dismissing in default.
Hence, he has prayed to set aside the order. He also drew my attention
to the subsequent order dated 29/06/2019, passed by the Deputy
Collector on the application for restoration of the revision.
(4) Perused both the orders. Prima facie, it seems that the
respondent No.6 Deputy Collector, without hearing the parties, passed
a cryptic order, "closed the revision proceedings", and rejected the
PAGE 2 OF 5
-- 3 -- WP 5472.2019 (J).doc
application for review of the said order/restoration of the revision.
(5) Respondent No.6, by filing a reply, contended that "if this
Court remands the matter in question to decide the same afresh as per
law by setting aside both the impugned orders as communicated to the
petitioners by communication dated 29/06/2019, then respondent No.6
shall decide the matter as per law provided that both the parties shall
co-operate to answering respondent No.6".
(6) Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 has given no
objection to the prayer made by the petitioners to remand the matter
for fresh consideration.
(7) In the aforesaid backdrop, it seems that the passing of
the order by respondent No.6 Deputy Collector dated 17/05/2019 is
contrary to the settled position of law, as the same was passed without
hearing the parties and determining the real controversy between the
parties. Moreover, it appears that, by passing an order dated
17/05/2019, the Deputy Collector "Closed the proceedings" instead of
deciding the revision on merit, which is improper. In such an
eventuality, the respondent No.6 Deputy Collector, at the most, either
passes an order for dismissal in default or, after hearing the parties,
decides the same on merit. However, the impugned order dated
PAGE 3 OF 5
-- 4 -- WP 5472.2019 (J).doc
17/05/2019 does not reflect the same, but it only denotes that the
revision proceedings were closed/filed. The said order is not sustainable
in the eyes of the law; therefore, in my view, it would be appropriate to
quash and set aside the same.
(8) The learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 requested to direct the Authority to
decide the revision expeditiously. Also submitted to give the parties a
fixed date to appear before the authority.
(9) In the wake of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned orders dated 17/05/2019 and 29/06/2019 are quashed
and set aside. The proceedings before respondent No.6 Deputy
Collector bearing No.Appeal/Revi.No.07 MCA-23/2018-19 are restored
to their original stage as of 17/05/2019 for hearing of the said revision.
(10) The respondent No.6 Deputy Collector is directed to
decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within
a period of 'six months' from the date of appearance of the parties
before him.
(11) The parties are directed to appear before the Deputy
Collector on 20/01/2025.
PAGE 4 OF 5
-- 5 -- WP 5472.2019 (J).doc
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
Inform the concerned authority/respondent No.6
accordingly.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 5 OF 5
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/01/2025 10:35:45
