Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Being dissatisfied by the order of SDO, the petitioner filed revision application being Revision Application No.1 of 2022 before the Additional Collector under Section 257 of the MLRC. Vide order dated 22nd August 2023, the Additional Collector held that SDO has admitted the appeal for hearing on merits after condoning the delay. It was held that the said order being an interim order passed under Section 251 of the MLRC and as per Section 252 of the MLRC there is no provision of appeal against the said order. The Additional Collector disposed of the application holding that upon conjoint reading of Section 252, Section 257 read with Section 259 of MLRC where there is no appeal provided against an order, the same is final and thus the revision would lie only under Section 257 of the MLRC before the State Government.

8. Mr. Killedar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the petitions would submit that the issue as regards the maintainability of revision application under Section 257 of the MLRC before the Additional Collector is no longer res integra as the same stands decided by a decision of this Court in the case of Ahmad Ambir Shaikh v. Abdul Rahiman Ambir Shaikh [Writ Petition No.15106 of 2022 decided on 14th December 2022] wherein this Court has held that as the SDO had condoned the delay and admitted appeal, the only remedy available to the petitioner was to file revision application before the Additional Collector. He would submit that the order of Patil-SR (ch) 15 of 34 wp 12965-23 ( J).doc SDO would indicate that SDO had condoned the delay and listed the appeal for hearing on merits, which is the stage of Sub-Section (2) of Section 255 of the MLRC. He submits that against the order admitting appeal, by virtue of Section 252 of the MLRC no appeal would lie and the remedy is to file a revision under Section 257 of the MLRC. Pointing out to the provisions of Section 257 of the MLRC, Mr. Killedar would submit that the provision empowers the State Government as well as any revenue or survey officer not inferior in rank to the Assistant or Deputy Collector or the Superintendent of Land Records to exercise the power of revision. Pointing out to Sub-Section (4) of Section 257 of the MLRC, he would submit that only in the event an order is passed by the Assistant or Deputy Collector under Sub- Section (1) or (2) of Section 257 of the MLRC, revision is not permissible and in that event it is only the State Government who can modify, annul or reverse the order passed under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) of Section 257 of MLRC. He submits that the order of Additional Collector was not an order within the meaning of Sub- Section (1) of Section 257 of the MLRC and therefore the provisions of Sub-Section (4) of Section 257 of the MLRC would not be applicable. He submits that the remedy of revision before the Additional Collector, as held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ahmad Ambir Shaikh v. Abdul Rahiman Ambir Shaikh (supra) is Patil-SR (ch) 16 of 34 wp 12965-23 ( J).doc available to the Petitioners. He would further submit that power under Article 227 of the Constitution Of India can be exercised in case where there is an unjustified refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in Court or Tribunal. He draws support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2018) 8 SCC 329]. He would further submit that despite the decision of this Court in the case of a Ahmad Ambir Shaikh v. Abdul Rahiman Ambir Shaikh (supra) being brought to the notice of Additional Collector, the Additional Collector has declined to exercise the jurisdiction. He would submit that in such an event the conduct in not following the previous decision undermines the respect for law which is contumacious and as such contempt proceedings need to be be initiated. He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Baradkanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit [(1973) 1 SCC 446].

23. As the order of SDO admits the appeal, there is statutory interdict as Section 252 of the MLRC bars filing of an appeal against an order admitting the appeal. Hence, against the order of SDO admitting the Appeal after condonation of delay, there is no remedy of 2nd appeal to the Additional Collector available to the Petitioner under Section 247 of MLRC.

24. Having held that no remedy of 2nd appeal was available as the order of SDO admitted the Appeal, the issue now to be considered is the remedy available to the Petitioner against the order of SDO condoning the delay and admitting the Appeal. The power of revision is contained in Section 257 of the MLRC which vests concurrent power of revision in the State Government and any Revenue or Survey Officer not inferior in rank to Assistant or Deputy Collector or the Superintendent of Land Records against the order of subordinate revenue or survey officer. The order of SDO being an order of subordinate revenue or survey officer, the State Government or Patil-SR (ch) 28 of 34 wp 12965-23 ( J).doc Assistant or Deputy Collector could have exercised powers under Sub- Section (1) of Section 257 of the MLRC. Sub-Section (4) of Section 257 of the MLRC when read carefully, provides that revision of the order passed under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) of Section 257 of the MLRC by any officer referred to in the said Sub-Sections shall not be permissible and it shall be lawful only for State Government to modify, annul or reverse any such order passed under sub Section (1) or (2). To put it simply, if order is passed by any revenue or survey officer in exercise of the powers under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) of Section 257 of the MLRC, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the second revision against the said order passed by the revenue or survey officer will lie to the State Government alone.

27. Upon conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 251, Section Section 252 and Section 259 of MLRC, in my view, the only remedy available to the Petitioner is the remedy of revision before the State Government against the order of the SDO admitting the Appeal after condoning the delay.

28. It is the Petitioner's own case that the order of the SDO admits the appeal after condoning the delay and as such as In the present case, as the provisions of Section 252 of the MLRC prohibit the filing of appeal from an order admitting appeal under Section 251 of the MLRC, by virtue of Section 259 of the MLRC, the powers under Sub- Section (1) of Section 257 of the MLRC can be exercised only by the State Government and not by the Additional Collector. The order of Additional Collector refusing to exercise its revisional jurisdiction Patil-SR (ch) 30 of 34 wp 12965-23 ( J).doc based on reading of Sections 252, 257 and 259 of MLRC thus cannot be faulted with.