1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4893/2010. Smt. Asha Nanaji Pimpalkar and another. -: VERSUS :- The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others. 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. DATED : DECEMBER 09, 2010. This Court has issued notice for final disposal. Accordingly I have heard Shri N. Deshpande, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 finally. Nobody has appeared for respondent nos. 3 to 6. Learned A.G.P. has filed reply affidavit. Rule made returnable forthwith. Short contention of Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel is, revision filed by petitioners has been rejected immediately upon its presentation just by looking at the impugned order of the Additional Collector, Chandrapur dated 24.02.2010. 2 It is apparent that the observations made by the Additional Collector in the impugned order are challenged by the petitioners by filing revision and hence those observations cannot be the answer to reject that challenge. Learned A.G.P. has also in order to show that sufficient opportunity was given by the Additional Collector to petitioners, invited attention to dates disclosed in the reply affidavit. It is apparent that those dates therefore do not find part of the impugned order. The impugned order passed by respondent no.1 is, therefore, sought to be justified by placing on record some other material. Such an effort cannot be allowed to succeed. The impugned order dated 01.09.2010 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The Divisional Commissioner to call for records and proceedings and thereafter to decide the revision in accordance with law. If he feels it necessary to issue notice to respondent in revision, those orders shall be passed by the Divisional Commissioner in accordance with the law. Petition is thus partly allowed. The proceedings in Revision No. 1/RTS/64-2010-11 are restored back to the file of respondent no.1 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. 3 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.