1 WP 4040.2011 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4040 OF 2011 1. Tukaram Trimbak Sonawane Age : 75 Years, Occ. Agri., R/o : Matulthan, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Annasaheb Trimbak Sonawane Age : 65 Years, Occ. Agri., R/o : Matulthan, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Vithal Trimbak Sonawane Age : 41 Years, Occ. Agri., R/o : Matulthan, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Babusaheb Trimbak Sonawane Age : 61 Years, Occ. Agri., R/o : Matulthan, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Eknath Trimbak Sonawane Age : 58 Years, Occ. Agri., R/o : Matulthan, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6. Jagannath Trimbak Sonawane Age : 56 Years, Occ. Agri., R/o : Matulthan, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 WP 4040.2011 - ( J ) 7. Subhash Annasaheb Sonawane Age : 36 Years, Occ. Agri., R/o : Matulthan, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 8. Devidas Annasaheb Sonawane Age : 33 Years, Occ. Agri., R/o : Matulthan, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. The Tahsildar, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..... RESPONDENTS Mr. K.S.Bhore, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.G.Shelke, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14/06/2011 3 WP 4040.2011 - ( J ) ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The Tahsildar directed the petitioners to pay royalty amount of Rs. 6,39,400/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoking Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ], filed the Appeal. The Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur on 3/2/2011 directed the petitioner to deposit 10 % of the royalty amount i.e. Rs. 63,940/- within eight ( 8 ) days for consideration of the Appeal. The said order is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.K.S. Bhore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 247 of the Code does not authorize the authority to impose such condition. When the statute itself does not provide for such a pre- deposit, the authority could not have passed such order. 4. Mr. V.G. Shelke, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the State supports the impugned order. 5. From the perusal of Section 247 of the Code, it is manifest that 4 WP 4040.2011 - ( J ) the said provision does not lay down any deposit of amount as pre-condition for entertaining the Appeal. The Appeal is a statutory right. The said statutory right can not be curtailed by imposing condition which are alien to the provisions governing the Appeals. No other provision is cited, under which the Appeal of the present nature could have been filed apart from Section 247 of the Code. When the statute itself did not provide for such a pre-condition, the Sub Divisional Officer does not have power or jurisdiction to impose such a condition. 6. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 3/2/2011 is quashed and set aside and the deposit of 10 % amount as directed by the impugned order is quashed. 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4040.2011 - ( J )