Kamalakar Yashvant Sawant vs State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kamalakar Yashvant Sawant vs State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition partly allowed; order dated 17 June 2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner set aside; Revision Application No.344 of 2021 restored on the file of the Additional Commissioner, to be decided afresh on its own merits; petition disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 lay before the Additional Commissioner against the Additional Collector's order dated 23 April 2018, notwithstanding the rejection of the Petitioner's review application — the question raised by the impugned order dated 17 June 2023 holding that the revision did not lie in the Additional Commissioner's jurisdiction. +1 more

Court's answer

Merely because the Petitioner was advised to file a review petition against the Additional Collector's order dated 23 April 2018 does not mean that revision would not lie against that order before the Additional Commissioner; the Additional Collector having merely refused to review his own order, the original order dated 23 April 2018 continues to survive.

Ratio / Principle

Revision is maintainable against the Additional Collector's order dated 23 April 2018 before the Additional Commissioner under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Key takeaways

Though the prayers in the revision application were 'not happily worded', it did contain a challenge to the Additional Collector's order dated 23 April 2018, and the Additional Commissioner ought to have considered the revision application on merits.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Sandeep V. Marne, J.), Writ Petition No. 475 of 2024, decided 6 May 2025 — Rejection of a review application by the Additional Collector, Sindhudurg does not foreclose a revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division against the Collector's original order dated 23 April 2018; the Collector having merely refused to review his own order, the original order continues to survive. The Additional Commissioner's order dated 17 June 2023 declining jurisdiction over the revision was set aside, and Revision Application No.344 of 2021 was restored to be decided afresh on merits, the Court finding that the revision application, though its prayers were 'not happily worded', did challenge the Collector's order dated 23 April 2018.

Megha 26_WP_475_2024.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 475 OF 2024

Kamalakar yashvant Sawant ...Petitioner

V/s.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Mayank Bagta a/w Mr. Aditya Indulkar i/b Mr. Swapan Samdani for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vrushabh Sarle i/b M/s. L.C. Tolat & Co. for Respondent No.6.

Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent-State.

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated: 6 MAY 2025.

P.C.:

Petition challenges order dated 17 June 2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division holding that revision preferred by the Petitioner did not lie in the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner.

Respondent No.6 had preferred Appeal No.37 of 2010 Digitallysigned by before the Sub Divisional Officer, Kudal ( SDO) challenging MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2025.05.0718:28:22 Mutation Entry No.7245. The Appeal was allowed by the SDO +0530 by order dated 21 July 2016 and Mutation Entry No.7245 was set

Page No. 1 of 3 6 May 2025

Megha 26_WP_475_2024.docx

aside and the proceedings were remanded for holding fresh enquiry before the Tehsildar, Kudal. Petitioner got aggrieved by SDO’s order dated 21 July 2016 and filed appeal before the Additional Collector, Sindhudurg under the provisions of Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ( the Code) . The Appeal was however dismissed by the Additional Collector by order dated 23 April 2018. Instead of directly filing a revision against order dated 23 April 2018 before the Additional Commissioner, Petitioner was apparently advised to seek review of order dated 23 April 2018 passed by the Additional Collector. The review application was rejected by order dated 14 August 2018. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.473 of 2021 in this Court directly seeking to challenge order dated 23 April 2018 passed by the Additional Collector. Petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file revision before the Additional Commissioner. Accordingly, Petitioner filed revision under Section 257 of the Code before the Additional Commissioner. However, by the impugned order dated 17 June 2023 Additional Commissioner, has held that he does not have jurisdiction to decide revision application. The only reason for non-entertaining of revision application filed by the Petitioner by the Additional Commissioner was rejection of review application by the Additional Collector by order dated 14 August 2018.

In my view, merely because the Petitioner was advised to file a review petition against Additional Collector’s order 23 April 2018, the same would not mean that revision

Page No. 2 of 3

6 May 2025

Megha 26_WP_475_2024.docx

would not lie against order dated 23 April 2018 before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Collector has merely refused to review his order. This would mean that original order of Collector dated 23 April 2018 would continue to survive. Revision is maintainable against order dated 23 April 2018 before the Additional Commissioner under the provisions of Section 257 of the Code.

I have gone through the memorandum of the revision application filed before the Divisional Commissioner. The prayers in the said revision application are not happily worded. However, there appears to be challenge to the Additional Collector’s order dated 23 April 2018 in the revision application. The Additional Commissioner ought to have considered the revision application on merits.

I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:-

(i) Petition is accordingly partly allowed (ii) Order dated 17 June 2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner is set aside.

(iii) Revision Application No.344 of 2021 is restored on the file of Additional Commissioner, who shall proceed to decide the same afresh on its own merits.

With the above directions, Petition is disposed of.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 3 of 3 6 May 2025