High Court
Facts
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 8977 OF 2024DHANRAJ TANKU PATIL AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSMr. G. S. Rane, Advocate for the petitioners Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar, AGP for the respondent/StateANDWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8978 OF 2024DHANRAJ TANKU PATIL AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSMr. G. S. Rane, Advocate for the petitioners Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar, AGP for the respondent/StateCORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 9th MAY, 2025PER COURT :-1.While challenging the orders impugned dated 21/06/2024passed by Principal Secretary and Special Officer on duty, Revenue andForest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in exercise of powers underSection 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short ‘theCode’), it is a case of the petitioner that second revision filed under theprovisions of Section 257 of the Code is not tenable before any otherofficer but for the Minister concerned of the State Government.wp8977.24.odt1 of 9 2.By consent of both sides, these petitions are heard finally atthe stage of admission and decided by common order.3.The relevant facts necessary for the determination of thesepetitions are narrated in brief as under:(i)Petitioner No.2 is the owner of the tractor which was in thecustody of the petitioner No.1 at the relevant time. It was alleged that on11/09/2020 the unlawful extraction of sand was done with the help oftractors bearing registration Number MH 19-BG-1475 and MH-19-BG-3329. A panchnama was drawn. Show cause notice issued to thepetitioner No.1 as to why penalty of Rs.1,34,683/- each should not beimposed. He was called upon to submit explanation within a period ofthree days. It was a case of the petitioner that petitioner No.1 wastransporting the sand from one place to another for the governmentwork of concretization of village road. It is further claimed that MachaleGroup Grampanchayat has paid royalty towards the transportation.Petitioner No.1 responded to show cause notice denying the allegationsand placing his contention on the record. Tahasildar, Chopda passedorders dated 04/03/2021 imposing penalty of Rs.1,34,683/- each.Petitioner preferred appeals being RTS Appeal Nos. 18/2021 and19/2021 before SDO, Chopda which came to be dismissed by orderdated 20/09/2021. An appeal was filed under Section 247 of the Codewp8977.24.odt2 of 9 before the Additional Collector, Jalgaon in Appeal Nos 160/2021 and162/2021 which resulted into dismissal thereof on 30/03/2022. Againstthese orders the revisions were preferred under Section 257 of the Codebefore the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division Nashik. In bothproceedings, Revisional Authority directed to the Tahasildar, Chopda tohear the proceeding and to pass fresh order of recovery of penalty fromthe petitioners. Being aggrieved by these orders proceeding bearing No.Gaukhanij-32/1223/Pra. Kra.455/Kha-2 was preferred before the StateGovernment. Principal Secretary and Special Officer on duty, Revenueand Forest Department entertained the said revision and rejected thesame by impugned order dated 21/06/2024. Hence, these petitions.4.Learned counsel for the petitioners without going to merits ofthe case of the petitioners submits that in view of the provisions ofSection 257 of the Code, the second revision is entertaintenable by StateGovernment i.e. the Minister and that there cannot be any delegation ofpowers to the other officers. It is his submission by referring to theprovisions of Section 257 of the Code and judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in case of Gurudassiing Nawoosing Panjwani Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Ors., 2015 AIR SCW 6277 that it is only the Ministerconcerned of the State Government can entertain second revision tosatisfy the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Revenuewp8977.24.odt3 of 9
Legal Reasoning
Officer. He has also placed reliance on the judgments of CoordinateBench of this Court in case of Rashtriya Shikshan Sangh, Sidhewadi andothers Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2013(1) Mh.L.J.129 and incase of Sheikh Mohamed Fatemohamed and etc., Vs. RaisuddinAzimuddin Katil and others, AIR 2000 Bombay 353. Thus it is hissubmission that the order impugned passed by the Principal Secretaryand Special Officer on duty, Revenue and Forest Department is withoutjurisdiction and be set aside and the matter be relegated back to theMinister for decision of the revision.5.Learned AGP opposed the petition by contending that by notraising objection before Authority the petitioners have submittedthemselves to the jurisdiction of authority under Section 257 of the Actand as such now it is not open for them to take exception to itsjurisdiction. It is submitted that considering the business rules it is openfor the State Government in exercise of its powers to make rule asprovided under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India and to delegatethe business to the officers. It is her submission that in this case also bypassing order the Minister concerned has delegated the powers ofentertainment of the revision and therefore there is no substance in thepresent petitions. To support her submission reliance is placed relianceon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of N. K.wp8977.24.odt4 of 9 Harchandani Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr., 2006(5) Bom. C.R. 256and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kedar ShashikantDeshpande and others Versus Bhor Municpal Council and others, (2011)2 SCC 654.6.At the outset this Court would like to deal with the argumentsof learned AGP that the petitioners having not raised objection to thejurisdiction of the Principal Secretary and Special Officer on duty,Revenue and Forest Department and therefore now cannot be permittedto claim so in these petitions is concerned, position of law is settled tosay that the parties cannot vest the jurisdiction in any authority which isinherently lacked.7.At this stage it would be relevant to take note of Section 257of the Code which reads thus:-“257. Power of State Government and of certain revenue andsurvey officers to call for and examine records and proceedings ofsubordinate officers.(1) The State Government and any revenue or survey officer, notinferior in rank to an Assistant or Deputy Collector, or aSuperintendent of Land Records, in their respective departments,may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or theproceedings of any subordinate revenue or survey officer, for thepurpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as thelegality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to theregularity of the proceedings of such officer.(Provided that, no such proceedings under this sub-section or sub-section (2) shall be initiated by any revenue or survey officer afterexpiry of a period of five years from the date of decision or order ofsubordinate officer (except with the previous permission of thewp8977.24.odt5 of 9
Decision
State Government).(2) A Tahsildar, a Naib-Tahsildar, and a District Inspector of LandRecords may in the same manner call for and examine theproceedings of any officer subordinate to them in any matter inwhich neither a formal nor a summary inquiry has been held.(3) If in any case, it shall appear to the State Government, or toany officer referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) thatany decision or order or proceedings so called for should bemodified, annulled or reversed, it or he may pass such orderthereon as it or he deems fit:Provided that, the State Governmentor such officer shall not vary or reverse any order affecting anyquestion or right between private persons without having to theparties interested notice to appear and to be heard in support ofsuch order:Provided further that, an Assistant or Deputy Collectorshall not himself pass such order in any matter in which a formalinquiry has been held, but shall submit the record with his opinionto the Collector, who shall pass such order thereon as he maydeem fit.[Provided that, any proceeding brought before any revenue orsurvey officer shall be disposed of within a period of one year fromthe date on which such proceeding is filed:Provided further that, any proceeding pending under this section,before any revenue or survey officer on the date of commencementof the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2016,shall be disposed of within a period of one year from the date ofsuch commencement.[Provided also that, where the revisional authority fails to disposeof any such proceeding within the period specified in this sub-section, the State Government alone shall be competent to grantsuch further extension of time for disposing of any such proceedingas it may deem fit, after recording reasons therefor in writing.)Provided also that, in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to berecorded in writing, the period for disposing of any such proceedingmay be extended further by six months by the State Governmentor an officer not below the rank of Collector designated in thisbehalf who is superior to the revisional authority:Provided also that, if the revisional authority fails to dispose of anysuch proceedings within the period of specified in sub-section (3),without sufficient cause, then he shall be liable for disciplinaryaction in accordance with the concerned disciplinary ruleswp8977.24.odt6 of 9 applicable to him:][Provided also that], the State Government or such officer shall notvary or reverse any order affecting any question or right betweenprivate persons without having given to the parties interestednotice to appear and to be heard in support of such order:[Provided also that], an Assistant or Deputy Collector shall nothimself pass such order in any matter in which a formal inquiry hasbeen held, but shall submit the record with his opinion to theCollector, who shall pass such order thereon as he may deem fit.(4) Revision of an order issued under sub-section (1) or (2) by anyofficer referred to therein shall not be permissible; but it shall belawful for the State Government alone to modify, annul or reverseany such order issued under sub-section (1) of (2).]”8.Perusal of above provisions indicate that sub Section 4 whichis amended in the year 2016 by Act 11 of Maharashtra, 2016 providesthat the revision of an order issued under sub Section 1 or 2 by anyofficer referred to therein shall not be permissible but for the StateGovernment alone to modify or reverse such order. Thus it is clear thatthat an embargo is created in entertaining the second revision by anyofficer mentioned in this provision and the same can be only done by theconcerned Minister of State Government.9.In this regard it would be relevant to take note ofobservations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case GurudassiingNawoosing Panjwani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) has heldin paragraph 32 which reads thus:“32. Considering the entire scheme of the Code, and theprovisions contained in Sections 257 and 259, we are of thedefinite opinion that the Minister concerned of the Statewp8977.24.odt7 of 9 Government can entertain second revision to satisfy thelegality and propriety of the order passed by the RevenueOfficer. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court haselaborately discussed the question and passed the impugnedorder holding that Section 257 confers jurisdiction to the StateGovernment to entertain its revision against the order passedby any Revenue Officer either in appeal or in revision. We findno infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court.Hence, this appeal has no merit which is accordinglydismissed.”10.Reverting back to the facts of the case there is no disputeabout the fact that the order came to be passed by SDO in Appeal No.18/2021 on 20/09/2021 upholding the order of Tahasildar. Against thisorder an Appeal came to be preferred under Section 247 of the Codebefore the Additional Commissioner, Jalgaon being Appeal No. 162/2021.This appeal came to be rejected by order dated 30/03/2023. Theaggrieved petitioners filed Revision under Section 257 of the Code beforethe Additional Commissioner. Order came to be passed by RevisionalAuthority is further challenged by preferring second revision before theState Government. This revision admittedly is not entertained by theMinister but by the Principal Secretary and Special Officer on duty,Revenue and Forest Department.11.As held herein above that the second revision would not betenable before any officer referred to in Section 257 of the Code but bythe State Government itself. Thus, the second revision preferred againstthe order passed by the Addl. Commissioner was maintainable before thewp8977.24.odt8 of 9 Minister and not before his delegatee. The business rules cannot override the statutory provision and hence delegation of power to entertainsecond revision being contrary to sub-section 4 of Section 257 of theCode, is not valid.12.Apart from this it is relevant to take note of the fact thateven otherwise general order issued by the Minister refers to theassignment of the proceeding before the Additional Chief Secretary,Revenue. The Authority which passed order impugned is PrincipalSecretary and not Additional Chief Secretary. Thus, even on this groundthe order passed by the Authority is without jurisdiction and hencecannot sustain. 13.Be that as it may, above discussion indicate that the SecondRevision must be entertained and decided by the statute of StateGovernment and the said jurisdiction can not be delegated to any otherofficer, being not permissible under Section 257(4) of the Code. Theorders impugned therefore cannot sustain and hereby set aside. Revisionproceeding in question stands relegated to the Minister for the decisionafresh in accordance with law.14.Petitions stand allowed in above terms. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)sspwp8977.24.odt9 of 9