(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1232 OF 2011 1. Vishwanath s/o. Laxman Bhor, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Narayan s/o. Laxman Bhor, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Laxman s/o. Aba Bhor, Age : 71 years, Occupation : Agriculture. All r/o. Ambad, Taluka : Akole, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Shantaram s/o. Savleram Kanwade, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Balasaheb s/o. Savleram Kanwade, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture. Both r/o. Ambad, Taluka : Akole, Dist. : Ahmednagar. (2) 3. The Tahsildar, Akole, Taluka : Akole, District : Ahmednagar. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. V.Y. Bhide, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.3 and 4. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21ST APRIL 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent. 3. The petitioners have challenged the order dated (3) 30-10-2010, passed by respondent no.4, in Revision No. 33 of 2009, arising out of order dated 11-2-2009, in Wahiwat Case No. 13 of 2008, passed by Tahsildar, Akole (District : Ahmednagar). The petitioners have prayed that Wahiwat Case No. 13 of 2008 be dismissed. 4. Short contention of Adv. Mr. S.K. Shinde, appearing for the petitioners, is in the absence of interim orders operating in revision, when by obtaining Police aid, the alleged obstruction came to be removed and way is shown to have been cleared (allegedly), the revision under Section 23 of Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906, cannot be disposed of as infructuous. 5. Adv. Mr. V.Y. Bhide, appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, contends that the revisional authority has evaluated rival contentions and found no substance even on merits. Hence, the Police aid and clearing of way cannot be read as only reason for dismissal of revision. 6. Learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4, is also supporting the impugned order. 7. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that revision was against the order dated 11-2-2009 in Wahiwat Case No. (4) 13/2008. In that case, on 18-5-2009, Mamlatdar granted Police aid and it is alleged that with the help of Police authorities, obstruction came to be removed. The revision was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 19-6-2009. 8. In this situation, the Sub-Divisional Officer should have looked into the dates of filing and also the challenge on merits to find out whether there was any substance in the challenge or not. It is not the case that revision came to be filed after expiry of period of limitation. 9. In the impugned order, up to last but one paragraph i.e. up to paragraph 6, only facts are recorded and then rival contentions. Reasons are given in concluding paragraphs and only reason recorded is execution of the order of Tahsildar. 10. At this stage, Adv. Mr. V.Y. Bhide, for respondent nos.1 and 2, has pointed out that revision was filed after expiry of limitation and there was delay of about 2 months. That delay has been condoned on 10-5-2010. 11. As the delay has been condoned, I am not expressing any final opinion in this respect. Parties are free to raise all contentions in the matter before Sub-Divisional Officer. (5) 12. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 30-10-2010, passed by respondent no.4 / Sub-Divisional Officer, in Revision No. 33 of 2009, is quashed and set aside. Revision is restored to the file of respondent no.4 / Sub-Divisional Officer for giving fresh decision. The Sub-Divisional Officer after hearing parties, shall decide the revision on appropriate grounds at the earliest. (ii) Parties are directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 16th May 2011 and the Sub-Divisional Officer shall attempt to decide the revision on all grounds as early as possible and in any case, by 31st July 2011. 13. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1232