1 W.P.11490.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11490 OF 2010 Shaikh Ismail S/o Shaikh Ibrahim and others ...PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, and others ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.A.A.Khande,Advocate for petitioners. Mr.P.P.More,A.G.P. for respondent Nos 1 to 3 Mr.S.S.Shete,Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr.Atul Kale,Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 7 ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard counsel for the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Collector Aurangabad has decided the Appeal No.30 of 2005, though the petitioners herein are affected parties, who were not joined as party respondents in the said proceedings. 2 W.P.11490.10 Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, petitioners-herein preferred Second Appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. . It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that without assigning any specific reason by cryptic order, the Additional Commissioner has rejected appeal, filed by the petitioners herein. Therefore, he submits that Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned AGP for the respondent-State submits that being aggrieved by the order of the Collector, petitioners herein preferred revision under section 318 of Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation has not added anything. 3 W.P.11490.10 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the counsel for respective parties and in my opinion the order impugned in this petition cannot be sustained. Perusal of the said order makes it abundantly clear that no any reason was assigned by the Additional Commissioner Aurangabad, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. The Additional Commissioner without assigning any reason have held that appeal is not maintainable. In fact, from perusal of the order of the Collector,Aurangabad in Appeal No. 30 of 2005, it is crystal clear that, Collector has exercised the powers under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. I find force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners that Second Appeal as provided under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is maintainable before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner, if wanted to take a view which he had taken in the impugned order, same should have been taken after recording sufficient reasons. 4 W.P.11490.10 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable, and same is quashed and set aside. Case ROR/Rev/Appeal/69/2009 is restored to its original position. Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad to hear the above mentioned proceedings afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass appropriate reasoned order. The petition is allowed to above extent and same stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK