1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6764 OF 2010. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners impugn the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Aurangabad. 3. The present petitioners had filed an application purportedly U/s 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, seeking restoration of the land. The Sub-Divisional Officer, directed the authorities to approach the Collector. When the matter went before the Collector, the Collector vide the impugned order directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the said application. 4. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the 2 petitioners submits that since the year 1987, the proceedings are pending and the petitioner is dragged from one Court to another. The Act, more particularly, Section 36A of the Code lays down that the application for restoration of the land shall be made before the Collector, as such the Collector may be directed to decide the said application. 5. Mr.Gore, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 and Mr.Phatke, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader submit that in view of provisions of Section 14(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the Sub- Divisional Officer is empowered to perform all the functions of a Collector in relation to the Sub- Division in his charge. Pursuant to the said provision, the Collector has properly passed the impugned order. 6. The proceedings which were pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer were proceedings U/s 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Section 13(4) of the said Code empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer to exercise all the powers conferred upon the Collector by 3 the Code. The proviso of the said sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the said Code lays down the circumstances when the Collector may pass an order stating that the Sub-Divisional Officer shall not perform the functions. 7. In view of the provisions enumerated in Section 13(4) of the Code, the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. The Sub- Divisional Officer before whom the proceedings are pending shall decide the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible, after giving opportunity to the parties and preferably within a period of nine (9) months from today. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.08.08.2011. asp/office/wp6764.10 4