Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition, Quashes Revision Order for Lack of Adjudication on Merits. Additional Commissioner directed to decide revision afresh after hearing parties.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 67
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, in Revision No. 02 of 2013/2014. The revision was filed against an order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Revenue Collector. The core issue was that the Additional Commissioner did not adjudicate the revision on its merits; instead, the order was passed without any discussion or decision on the contentions raised. The High Court noted that it was not in dispute that there was no adjudication by the Additional Commissioner in the revision. Since the revisional authority failed to perform its duty to decide the matter on merits, the impugned order was unsustainable. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 09.12.2015, and remitted the matter back to the Additional Commissioner for fresh decision after hearing the parties. The parties were directed to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 15.05.2017.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Revision - Adjudication on Merits - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The Additional Commissioner failed to adjudicate the revision on merits, merely passing an order without considering the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Revenue Collector. The High Court held that such non-adjudication vitiates the revisional order and remitted the matter for fresh decision after hearing parties. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Additional Commissioner's order in revision is sustainable when there is no adjudication on the merits of the order challenged.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition allowed. Order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Revision No. 02 of 2013/2014 is quashed and set aside. Matter remitted back to the Additional Commissioner for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties. Parties to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 15.05.2017.

Law Points

  • Revision authority must adjudicate on merits of the order challenged
  • failure to do so renders order liable to be set aside
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 139

WRIT PETITION NO. 139 OF 2017

2017-04-21

R. K. Deshpande

Shri D.V.Siras for Petitioner, Shri K.R.Lule, AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 4

Smt. Shahnaj Begam w/o Mohd. Shafi Rajvi, Smt. Husena Begam w/o Sheikh Jamil, Shri Sayyad Pyare Sahab s/o Abdul Kadar

The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur; Nazul Nayab Tahsildar, Civil Lines, Nagpur; The District Collector, Nagpur; City Survey Officer No.1, Civil Lines, Nagpur; Assistant Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Zone No.4, Nagpur; Shri Hafiz Khan s/o Ajim Khan Pathan; Shri Hamid Khan s/o Ajim Khan Pathan; Shri Nasir Khan s/o Hamid Khan Ghori

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging order of Additional Commissioner in revision for lack of adjudication on merits.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of order dated 09.12.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner in Revision No. 02 of 2013/2014 and direction to decide revision afresh.

Filing Reason

The Additional Commissioner did not adjudicate the revision on merits, merely passing an order without considering the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Revenue Collector.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 22.08.2013 passed by Revenue Collector; Revision No. 02 of 2013/2014 filed before Additional Commissioner; order dated 09.12.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner.

Issues

Whether the Additional Commissioner's order in revision is sustainable when there is no adjudication on the merits of the order challenged.

Submissions/Arguments

It was not in dispute that there was no adjudication by the Additional Commissioner in the revision.

Ratio Decidendi

A revisional authority must adjudicate on the merits of the order challenged; failure to do so renders the revisional order liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.

Judgment Excerpts

It is not in dispute that there is no adjudication by the Additional Commissioner in the Revision No. 02 of 2013 2014 in respect of the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Revenue Collector. Since it has not been done, the order impugned needs to be set aside with a direction to the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned.

Procedural History

The Revenue Collector passed an order on 22.08.2013. Against that order, Revision No. 02 of 2013/2014 was filed before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner passed an order on 09.12.2015 without adjudicating on merits. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition, Quashes Revision Order for Lack of Adjudication on Merits. Additional Commissioner directed to decide revision afresh after hearing parties.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Search Warrant Under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 — No Violation of Natural Justice as Assessee Was Heard Before Assessment Orders Were Passed.