Case Note & Summary
The petitioners challenged an order dated 01.01.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, which treated a revision filed under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLR Code) as an appeal under Section 249 of the same Code. The factual background involves mutation entries recorded in favor of the petitioners by the Sub Divisional Officer on 04.01.1994. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a revision under Section 257 before the Collector on 04.05.2006, which was dismissed on 05.05.2008, upholding the Sub Divisional Officer's order. Subsequently, respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a second revision under Section 257 on 26.05.2011 challenging the Collector's order. When it was noticed that such a second revision was not maintainable, an application was moved on 18.09.2012 seeking permission to convert the revision into an appeal under Section 249(2) of the MLR Code. The Additional Commissioner allowed this application by the impugned order. The High Court held that after the dismissal of the first revision under Section 257 by the Additional Collector on 05.05.2008, a second revision under Section 257 was not maintainable. An appeal under Section 249(2) can only be preferred against an order passed in revision if that order varies or reverses any order passed by the lower authority. In this case, the Additional Collector dismissed the revision, and the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was neither varied nor reversed. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to treat the revision as an appeal. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Revision - Maintainability - Second revision under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is not maintainable after dismissal of first revision - The Additional Commissioner cannot convert a revision into an appeal under Section 249(2) when the order in revision did not vary or reverse the lower authority's order - Held that the impugned order was without jurisdiction (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to treat a revision filed under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 as an appeal under Section 249 of the said Code.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 01.01.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in those terms.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner
- Maintainability of second revision
- Conversion of revision into appeal
- Section 249 and Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 143
Writ Petition No.514 of 2015
Shri K.P. Mahalle for Petitioners; Mrs. Rashi A. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent No.1
Arun Bhanudas Ubhad and Sau. Nirmala Ashokrao Virulkar
Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati; Smt. Malti Raviraj Ubhad; Manish Raviraj Ubhad; Shaila Prakash Mirzapure; Shila Pramod Gawande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Additional Commissioner treating revision as appeal.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 01.01.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner.
Filing Reason
The Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to convert a revision under Section 257 into an appeal under Section 249 of the MLR Code.
Previous Decisions
Mutation entries recorded in favor of petitioners on 04.01.1994 by Sub Divisional Officer; revision under Section 257 filed on 04.05.2006 dismissed on 05.05.2008 by Collector; second revision under Section 257 filed on 26.05.2011; application for conversion into appeal filed on 18.09.2012 allowed by impugned order.
Issues
Whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to treat a revision under Section 257 as an appeal under Section 249 of the MLR Code.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the second revision under Section 257 was not maintainable and the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to convert it into an appeal under Section 249(2) as the order in revision did not vary or reverse the lower authority's order.
Ratio Decidendi
An appeal under Section 249(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 lies only against an order passed in revision under Section 257 that varies or reverses any order passed by the lower authority. Where the revision is dismissed, the lower authority's order is not varied or reversed, and hence no appeal lies. The Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to convert a revision into an appeal in such circumstances.
Judgment Excerpts
The question is of the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to pass such an order.
After dismissal of the revision under Section 257 by the Additional Collector on 05.05.2008, second revision under Section 257 filed on 26.05.2011 was not maintainable.
An appeal can be preferred against the order passed in revision under Section 257 of the MLR Code only if an order passed in revision varies or reverses any order passed by the lower authority in terms of subsection (2) of Section 249.
Procedural History
Mutation entries recorded on 04.01.1994 by Sub Divisional Officer. Revision under Section 257 filed on 04.05.2006 before Collector, dismissed on 05.05.2008. Second revision under Section 257 filed on 26.05.2011 before Additional Commissioner. Application for conversion into appeal under Section 249(2) filed on 18.09.2012. Impugned order dated 01.01.2015 allowing conversion. Writ Petition No.514 of 2015 filed challenging the order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 249, Section 257
