1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 693 OF 2010 (Rajendra Nathuji Hiwarkar & Anr. vs. Sub-Divisional Officer & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 17, 2010. Heard Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No.1 and Shri Choube, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4. The matter pertains to right of way and this Court has by interim relief granted on 18.02.2010 permitted the petitioners to use the way in dispute without damaging the crops of Respondents No. 2 to 4. Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel points out that way has been given to the petitioners under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code on 25.02.2008 by Naib Tahsildar and that order was set aside in appeal by Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner then sought review of that order and that review was allowed on 22.01.2010. The order in review was then again reviewed at the instance of Respondents No. 2 to 4 on 01.02.2010. Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel, therefore, contends that this second review against review was not maintainable. 2 The learned AGP as also Shri Choube, learned counsel support the order dated 01.02.2010. They point out that first order in review dated 22.01.2010 was passed in breach of principles of natural justice without hearing Respondents No. 2 to 4. As this error was noticed, the order was reviewed. Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel contends that there is nothing on alleged lines in order dated 22.01.2010 to justify review of that order. He further makes a grievance that in any case in that event the order dated 01.02.2010 was passed without hearing the petitioners. After hearing, I find that both the orders in review are passed behind the back of rival parties. Thus, the other side was not given opportunity of hearing. In the circumstances, those orders are unsustainable. At this stage, Shri Bhandarkar as also Shri Choube, learned counsel for the respective parties jointly state that there are three orders passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, therefore, the matter should be transferred to same other authority. The learned AGP opposes said request and points out that the statutory remedy of filing appeal before the Additional Collector or Collector is available in the statute. In the circumstances, the review application allowed on 22.01.2010 shall be treated as further appeal and shall accordingly be decided by the Collector/ Additional Collector or Deputy Collector as the case may 3 be in accordance with law. The petitioners shall make copy of their review application available to that Authority for its registration as Appeal. As the mater is old, the effort shall be made by that authority to decide the appeal as early as possible and in any case by 15th May 2010. The parties shall appear before that authority on 29.03.2010 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. Till the authority so decides the appeal, interim arrangement allowed by this Court on 18th February 2010 shall continue. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.