1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5460 OF 2008 Vaijinath S/o Shambu Thite .... PETITIONER V E R S U S Smt. Subhadrabai W/o Shripati Thite and others .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.P.Katneshwarkar,Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.J.Salunke, Advocate for Respondent no. 2. Mr. S.N.Kendre, A.G.P. for Respondent no. 3. [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 16/09/2009 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 30/09/2009 PER COURT : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in ROR/REV/PT/187/2006 dated 11/8/2008. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted 2 that the Respondent no. 3 has not considered all the facts and circumstances of the case while passing the impugned order. The respondent no. 3 ought to have allowed the Revision filed by the present petitioner considering the documents placed on record. The learned counsel further submitted that the Judgment and Order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 212 of 2003, the respondent no. 3 ought to have allowed the Revision filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the competent civil court and the High Court held that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the disputed land and considering these Judgments and orders, the remand of the case by the respondent no. 3 is unwarranted. It is further submitted that even the Dy. Director of Land Records also held that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of disputed land. It is further submitted that the Order of remand and the view taken by the respondent no. 3 is contrary to the Judgment and order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 212 of 2003. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the impugned order is passed by the Additional Collector taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the parties. According to the learned counsel, the Additional Commissioner has not passed any adverse order against the petitioner and only matter is remanded back to the lower authority for fresh consideration and, therefore, the impugned order is perfectly justified in law. The learned counsel further submitted that the Additional 3 Commissioner held that the lower authorities have not properly considered various orders passed by the Civil Court and the contentions raised by the parties. Therefore, the impugned order came to be passed remanding the matter back to the lower authorities. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and upon perusal of the pleadings and grounds in the petition, annexures thereto, the impugned Judgment and orders passed by the authorities below and after perusal of order passed by this court in Second Appeal No. 212 of 2003, I am of the considered view that the Additional Commissioner has not properly appreciated the contention of the petitioner. On careful perusal of the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, it appears to me that no sufficient reasons are assigned by the Additional Commissioner in support of order to remand the matter to the Additional Collector, Ambajogai. The Additional Commissioner while remanding the case back to the Additional Commissioner, Ambajogai, in last paragraph of the Judgment held, ‘ The case is remanded back to the Additional Collector, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed for giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to both the parties . It is seen that both the parties have tried to approach in different Courts like Consolidation Court, Land Record Court, Civil Courts, up to the level of Hon’ble High Court in Second Appeal No. 4 212 of 2003, which is decided on 26/2/2007. The Additional Collector, Ambajogai is directed to look into the matter personally and go through all the relevant Judgments and orders of the Courts and then decide the case afresh within the period of four months in the light of the above referred Judgments. Hence I pass following order ’. 4. In my considered view, the revenue authorities while acting as a quasi judicial authority, has trappings of the Court. The observation by the Additional Commissioner i.e. the Additional Collector, Ambajogai is directed to look into the matter personally is unknown to the judicial language. In fact, the Additional Collector, Ambajogai has exercised powers as a quasi judicial authority and not in administrative capacity. At the cost of repetition, the revenue authority while acting as a quasi judicial authority, or appellate authority, has trappings of the Court and, therefore, there is no question of any personal attention to any of the matter. Therefore, in my considered view, the the Additional Commissioner was not justified in remanding the matter back to the Additional Collector. In fact, the petitioner as well as respondents have placed on record sufficient material to adjudicate the issue involved and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the remand order was unwarranted. The Additional Commissioner is empowered to entertain the Revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The jurisdiction is vested in the authority and it has to be exercised 5 judiciously and within the powers of revisionary jurisdiction. The power under revision has to be exercised with great care and caution. Therefore, in my considered view, without expressing anything on merits of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad is quashed and set aside. The Case No. ROR/REV/PT/1897/2006 is restored to its original position. Since considerable time has been lapsed from the filing of the Revision till date, the Additional Commissioner is directed to hear the parties and decide the Revision as expeditiously as possible within 2 months from the receipt of the Order by this Court. The petition is partly allowed and disposed of. The Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of in view of disposal of main Writ Petition. [ S.S.SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP5460.08