2012lpa70.11 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.70 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5280 OF 2010 (Ashfaque Mohammed Hanif vs. The Addl. Commissioner, Amravati Division 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 : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2011 Heard Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Vairagade, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 11. The letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 27/10/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby Writ Petition No.5280/2010 preferred by the appellant against the order dated 21/8/2007 passed by the Additional Collector as well as order dated 2012lpa70.11 2/5 29/7/2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner came to be dismissed. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellant, states that Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 24/2/2005 allotted land admeasuring 20 Rs to the appellant. The respondent nos. 3 to 11 filed a review application under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Additional Collector against the order dated 24/2/2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Additional Collector allowed the review application vide order dated 21/8/2007. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 29/7/2010. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.5280/2010 before Single Judge of this Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27/10/2010. Hence, the present letters patent appeal. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused provisions of Section 258 of the 2012lpa70.11 3/5 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 as well as order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It is not in dispute that the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 24/2/2005 allotted the land admeasuring 20 Rs to the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the respondent nos. 3 to 11 filed a review application under Section 258 of the Code before the Additional Collector. There is no mention in the order of the Additional Collector that he has treated the said proceedings as revisional proceedings. Similar is the situation before the Additional Commissioner. Shri Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, has also not disputed that the stand taken before the learned Single Judge by the State Government was not correct. The proceedings initiated by the respondent nos. 3 to 11 were under Section 258 of the Code and, therefore, they were treated to be review proceedings by the Additional Collector as well as Additional Commissioner. Shri Vairagade, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 11, states that by consent, the order dated 27/10/2010 passed by the learned Single 2012lpa70.11 4/5 Judge of this Court, order dated 21/8/2007 passed by the Additional Collector and order dated 29/7/2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner may be set aside and liberty may be given to the respondent nos. 3 to 11 to prefer revision against the order dated 24/2/2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellant, agrees to the proposal of the learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 11 with liberty to raise necessary grounds before the appropriate Authority. In the backdrop of the above referred undisputed facts, particularly in view of learned Counsel for the parties agreeing for setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, we pass the following order by consent : The order dated 27/10/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, order dated 21/8/2007 passed by the Additional Collector and order dated 29/7/2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner are set aside. The respondent nos. 3 to 11 are at liberty to file a revision application 2012lpa70.11 5/5 against the order dated 24/2/2005 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer. So far as aspect of limitation is concerned, since proceedings were continued before wrong forum, the same be considered accordingly. With the above observations, the letters patent appeal is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj