Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mahadu Onkar Patil and Manjula Mahadu Patil, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, who entertained Revision No. 2 of 2004 filed by the private respondents against the order of the District Collector, Jalgaon, after a period of eight years from the date of the appellate authority's decision. The petitioners raised a specific point of limitation before the revisional authority, but the authority observed that there is no limitation for filing revision and therefore the revision was maintainable. The petitioners' counsel argued that even in the absence of a prescribed limitation, the revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale (2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 150). The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the revisional authority erred in entertaining the revision after an inordinate delay of eight years, as the power must be exercised within a reasonable time. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Revision - Reasonable Time - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The revisional authority entertained a revision after eight years from the appellate order, holding that there is no limitation for filing revision. The High Court quashed the order, relying on Supreme Court precedent that even in absence of prescribed limitation, revision must be filed within reasonable time. Held that eight years is not a reasonable time and the revisional authority erred in entertaining the revision (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a revisional authority can entertain a revision after a period of eight years when no specific limitation is prescribed under the Act?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26th July 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision No. 2 of 2004 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Revision must be filed within reasonable time even if no limitation prescribed
- Inordinate delay of eight years is fatal
- Suo motu powers cannot be exercised at any time
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 3
Writ Petition No. 3029 of 2011
Mr. S.S. Rathi for petitioners, Mr. K.C. Sant for respondent No.1, Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi AGP for respondent No.6
Mahadu s/o Onkar Patil and Manjula w/o Mahadu Patil
Vijay s/o Mangesh Salunkhe, Dilip Mangesh Salukhe, Indubai Rambhau Patil, Jyotsana Balu Patil, Mangala Uttam Pawar, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, entertaining a revision after eight years.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the revisional order and dismissal of the revision as barred by limitation.
Filing Reason
The revisional authority entertained a revision filed after eight years from the appellate order, ignoring the point of limitation.
Previous Decisions
The appellate authority (District Collector, Jalgaon) passed an order; the private respondents filed Revision No. 2 of 2004 before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, which was entertained despite being filed after eight years.
Issues
Whether the revisional authority can entertain a revision after eight years when no limitation is prescribed?
Whether the revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: The revision was filed after eight years and is barred by limitation; even if no limitation is prescribed, it must be filed within reasonable time.
Respondents: The revisional authority held that there is no limitation for filing revision.
Ratio Decidendi
Even in the absence of a prescribed limitation, a revisional authority must exercise its power within a reasonable time; an inordinate delay of eight years is not reasonable and renders the revision unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
the Revisional authority, in the impugned order, has observed that, there is no any limitation for filing Revision and therefore, it cannot be said that, the Revision filed after a period of eight years is not within limitation or legal.
the Supreme Court ... held that, the exercise of powers of Revision by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, in absence of no time limit prescribed, it cannot be exercised at any time but must be exercised within a reasonable time.
Procedural History
The appellate authority (District Collector, Jalgaon) passed an order. The private respondents filed Revision No. 2 of 2004 before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, after eight years. The revisional authority entertained the revision. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3029 of 2011 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the revisional order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966:
