Case Note & Summary
In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenged the order dated 3 March 2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Daund-Purandar Sub-Division, in Revision Application No.29 of 2013. The Sub-Divisional Officer had set aside an order of the Tahsildar, purportedly exercising revisional powers under Section 23(2A) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. The dispute arose in the context of a suit under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, and the private respondents were the original applicants before the revenue authorities. The petitioners contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to hear the revision because Section 23(2A) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, permits the Collector to delegate revisional powers only to an Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector, or Assistant Commissioner, and not to a Sub-Divisional Officer. They relied on four previous judgments of the Bombay High Court, including Bija s/o. Maroti Hatwar v. Kisan s/o. Chirkut Padole, which had expressly held that a Sub-Divisional Officer cannot exercise such delegated powers. The State Government referred to a delegation order dated 1 August 1996 issued by the Collector, Pune, which purported to delegate powers under Section 23(2A) to Sub-Divisional Officers, and argued that this order conferred jurisdiction. The private respondents attempted to distinguish the precedents by pointing to the definition of 'Sub-Divisional Officer' under Section 2(34) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which defines the officer as an Assistant or Deputy Collector placed in charge of a sub-division. They contended that this definition should be read harmoniously with Section 23(2A). The court, after examining the statutory scheme, held that Section 23(2A) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, is specific and exhaustive: the Collector may delegate only to an Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector, or Assistant Commissioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer, though defined under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, does not derive any power under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act from that definition. The court also noted that in Bija s/o. Maroti Hatwar, the earlier bench had rejected the argument based on Section 13(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which allows a Sub-Divisional Officer to exercise Collector’s powers under that Code, holding that it does not extend to the Mamlatdar's Courts Act. The court found the delegation order dated 1 August 1996 to be ex facie contrary to the statute and of no legal effect. Consequently, the court declared the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order of 3 March 2014 to be without jurisdiction and set it aside. The Revision Application No.29 of 2013 was restored to the file of the Collector, with a direction that the Collector either decide it himself or delegate the hearing to one of the officers specified in Section 23(2A). The parties were directed to appear before the Collector on 15 January 2018, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Mamlatdar's Courts - Revisional Jurisdiction - Delegation of Powers - Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, Sections 23(2A), 3(aa) - The Sub Divisional Officer is not an authority to whom the Collector can delegate revisional powers under Section 23(2A); the section specifies only Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner - Court held that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in revision was without jurisdiction and set it aside, directing the Collector or a properly delegated officer to decide the revision application on merits (Paras 9-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer had the jurisdiction to decide the revision application under Section 23(2A) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3 March 2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside. Revision Application No.29 of 2013 is restored to the file of the Collector. The Collector shall decide the revision himself or it may be decided by one of the officers specified in Section 23(2A) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 15 January 2018. The Collector or delegated officer shall decide the revision on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 23(2A) of Mamlatdar's Courts Act
- 1906 does not authorize delegation to Sub-Divisional Officer
- Only Assistant Collector
- Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner can exercise delegated revisional powers
- Definition of Sub-Divisional Officer under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966 does not confer jurisdiction under Mamlatdar's Courts Act
- Section 13(4) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966 does not enable Sub-Divisional Officer to exercise Collector's powers under Mamlatdar's Courts Act
- Order of Collector delegating powers to Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 23(2A) is contrary to statute and void
