1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6008 OF 2009 Balasaheb s/o Kisanrao Katkar, age: 60 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Kothali, Tq.Parli-Vaijnath, District Beed. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 2 The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3 The Collector, Beed, District Beed. 4 The Sub Divisional Officer, Ambejogai, District Beed. Respondents Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 21 st July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 This writ petition challenges the orders dated 06.08.2007 and 09.06.2009, passed by Respondent No.2 i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, rejecting the application of the petitioner for declaring him as successor of his father, on the ground that there was delay of 25 years. By an 2 order dated 09.06.2009, the application for review filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Hence both these orders are impugned in this petition. 2 Learned A.G.P. Shri K.M.Suryawanshi appeared for the respondents and filed affidavit-in-reply. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that the matter can be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3 The application for declaring the petitioner as successor of his father was filed as per the provisions of Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act. It was dismissed on 06.08.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The stand of the respondents, in response to this averment, is that since there was delay of 25 years, the order was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner. Such a course is not permissible in law. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 4 The application for review filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by an order dated 09.06.2009. The stand of the respondents is that there is no provision for filing Review Application and hence application for review was not maintainable. The said stand cannot be faulted with. 5 Since the initial order dated 06.08.2007 was passed without hearing the petitioner, the same is in breach of principles of natural justice and it is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 6 In the result, instant writ petition succeeds. The impugned order 3 dated 06.08.2007, passed by Respondent No.2, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Respondent No.2 for deciding the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, obviously, after granting personal hearing to the petitioner. 7 Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (R. K. DESHPANDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp600809