1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 250 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 1182 of 2010 1] Shri Durgadas @ Ramnath S/o Govinddas Mohta, Age major. 2] Shri Chandratan S/o Govinddas Mohta, Age major, Both R/o Jagannath Ward, Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha. . ........APPELLANTS. ...VERSUS... 1] Maroti S/o Tukaram Tekam, Aged about 54 years, Occu. Agri. R/o Sindi (Mahagaon), Tq Maregaon, Dist. Yavatmal. 2] State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3] Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 4] The Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal. 5] The Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani, Dist. Yavatmal 6] Tahsildar/Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Dist. Yavatmal. .......RESPONDENTS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. M.D.Zoting, Advocate for the Appellants Mr. G.Y.Ghurde, Advocate for Respondent no.1 C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 28th July, 2010. 2 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants who were respondent nos.6 & 7 in the writ petition, have challenged the order dated 03/5/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by present respondent no.1 has been allowed. 3] The writ petition was directed against the order dated 06/6/2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, by which the revision filed by respondent no.1 was rejected on the ground that it has been presented by an advocate and the appearance of advocate is barred under the provisions of Section 44-B of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act of 1961”). The revision is directed against the order passed by respondent no.6 – S.L.D.T., Maregaon, dated 19/11/2007. 4] We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The relevant paragraph of the impugned order, reads as under :- “The provisions of Ceiling Act are for welfare and an aggrieved person has been conferred with remedy of revision. It is correct that there is absolute bar and an Advocate cannot appear in the matter, but then the revision present by an Advocate cannot be treated as a revision filed at the instance of the Advocate and the Advocate acts at the instance of his client and therefore the revision as presented is presented for the petitioner. Thus, merely because the revision is filed by petitioner 3 through Advocate it could not have been rejected. Rejection of revision without entertaining it is not permissible. It is not refusal to accept filing of revision. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside and the revision proceedings are restored back to the file of respondent no.2. Engagement and appearance of Advocate therein shall be ignored. All objections raised about locus of petitioner or then about the alleged abuse of legal process by him, are kept open and can be considered by the revisional authority in accordance with law. The proceedings in revision be decided as early as possible and in any case by 30.9.2010. Parties to appear before the respondent no.2 on 17.05.2010 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter.” 5] Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that filing of the revision by an Advocate is not an irregularity, but it is an illegality and in view thereof, it cannot be cured. We are unable to accept this submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants for the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned paragraph in the impugned order. For the reasons recorded in the impugned order, this appeal is dismissed. 6] Time to decide the revision is, however, extended by further period of three months from today. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale