1 wp571.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 571 OF 2011 Dilip s/o Mahadeorao Kadam (Patil), Age: 40 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Tambat Sangvi, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Madhav Ghode, Advocate holding for Mr. Suhas P. Urgunde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.R. Shaikh, AGP for Resp. Nos. 1,3 & 4. Mrs. M.B. Gangwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Rahul Awasarmal, Advocate for respondent No.5. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 26-11-2010 passed by the learned Tahasildar, Ahmedpur, District Latur in Case NO. 2010/ROR/Kavi/1495. 2 wp571.11 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the earlier order passed by the Tahsildar directing all concerned to maintain 15 feet distance and not to lay any pipe line in that 15 feet distance. However, the order passed by the Tahsildar is again reviewed by the same authority. The petitioner was not heard and said authority has no power to review his own order. Therefore, according to Counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned in this writ petition is required to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents would submit that, the Collector has power under Section 49 sub section 8 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to intervene in the order passed by the Tahsildar and to issue necessary directions. The petitioner is not required to be heard and therefore, according to the Counsel for the respondents, this Court may not entertain this writ petition. 3 wp571.11 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. It is admitted position that, when the Tahsildar has passed the second order, the petitioner was not heard by the Tahsildar. If the petitioner was heard in first round then it was incumbent upon the Tahsildar to call upon the petitioner to put forth his contentions. Therefore, there is clear breach of principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, the impugned order is required to be set aside. However, this Court cannot grant any substantial relief to the petitioner. 5. The impugned order is set aside. The Tahsildar is directed to hear the petitioner and all other concerned and then to pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of receipt of this order, in accordance with law and on the merits of the matter. However, till the Tahsildar decides afresh, parties are directed to maintain status quo. This Court has set aside the order of 4 wp571.11 the Tahsildar only on the ground that while passing second order, the Tahsildar has not followed the principles of natural justice. 6. Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent and same stands disposed of. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11