1 wp-8577.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8577 OF 2010 Shri Ajit B. Jadhav. .. Petitioner Vs Shri Narsinha Saraswati Swami Datta Dev Sansthan and Others. .. Respondents ­­ Shri Vineet Naik i/by Shri S.R. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Shri S.V. Sadavarte for Respondent No.1. Shri R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent waives service. Learned AGP waives service for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the Petition, the same is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Tahsildar of Hatkanangle, Taluka­Hatkanangle, District – Kolhapur, is seized of the proceedings under Section 149/150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 initiated at the instance of the 1st Respondent. By the impugned order dated 5th June, 2010, the Tahsildar has stayed the proceedings on the ground that the telephonic instruction has been received on 5th June, 2010 from the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, for staying the proceedings. 2 wp-8577.10 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass an order of stay and that too without hearing the Petitioner. The submission is that the proceeding under Section 149/150 of the said Code cannot be stayed by oral order communicated telephonically. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent has placed on record an application dated 4th June, 2010 submitted by the 1st Respondent to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. He pointed out that in the said application, the 1st Respondent has pointed out the manner in which the inquiry has proceeded. He pointed out that considering the conduct of the Tahsildar, appropriate directions have been sought for transfer of the proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, is justified in passing the order. The learned AGP also supported the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The order impugned dated 5th June, 2010 passed by the Tahsildar records that as per the telephonic instructions received on 5th June, 2010 from the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, he has stayed the pending proceedings. 6. In the present case, the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, is neither the Appellate Authority nor the Revisional Authority inasmuch as 3 wp-8577.10 the appeal and/or revision will lie before the Sub­Divisional Officer against the order passed by the Tahsildar. There was no occasion for the Additional Commissioner to communicate telephonically to the Tahsildar a direction to grant stay to the proceedings pending before the Tahsildar. 7. It is for the Divisional Commissioner, Pune to pass an appropriate order on the application of the 1st Respondent in accordance with law. Even in the copy of the application submitted by the 1st Respondent, there is no prayer for stay of the proceeding before the Tahsildar. 8. Hence, the impugned order of the Tahsildar and oral order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, will have to be quashed and set aside. However, it will be open for the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, to decide the application of the 1st Respondent in accordance with law. 9. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 5th June, 2010 passed by the Tahsildar is set aside. (b) Oral order dated 5th June, 2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, is quashed and set aside. 4 wp-8577.10 (c) It will be open for the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, to decide the application made by the 1st Respondent in accordance with law after hearing the parties. (d) All contentions of the parties in that behalf are kept open. (e) Rule is made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)