:1: 933.wp.9808.10 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9808 OF 2010 Sunita K. Datir and Ors ..Petitioners Vs. Tukaram L. Govardhane and Ors ..Respondents Mr. R. M. Haridas with Mr. Tushar Sonawane,Adv for Petitioner. Mr. M .S. Karnik,Adv. for Respondent No.1. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE :- AUGUST 1, 2011 P. C. The Petition challenges an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sub-division Nashik dated 24th November, 2010 in RTS/Revision/90/2009. 2 This Revision application was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order of the Tehsildar, Igatpuri in Case No.9 of 2008. The Tehsildar- Igatpuri, by an order dated 21st August, 2009 allowed the application preferred by Respondent No.1 and held that the Petitioner should remove the obstructions to the right of way/ access to the field of the said first respondent. 3 Against the order of this Tehsildar, Revision Application was filed by the Petitioner and the revisional authority has held that despite several opportunities given to the Petitioner, there were no arguments on their behalf. Therefore, the matter was concluded and decided ex-parte. :2: 933.wp.9808.10 4 Upon these allegations, which are made, I had directed the record to be produced and Ms. Cardozo, Learned AGP in all fairness states that the record from the office of the Tehsildar -Igatpuri has been produced. However, the grievance raised is that the Petitioner was not heard by the Sub Divisional Officer. The said Sub Divisional Office is not made a party to this Petition, therefore, the record from his officer could not be produced. Yet, Ms. Cardozo, Learned AGP states that she has received instructions by Fax from the said Sub Divisional Office and he has while giving her written instructions forwarded a copy of Roznama. 5 After hearing all parties at some length, I find that the Roznama indicates that the first date of appearance was 21st March, 2010. The matter was adjourned to 13th April, 2010. On that day, the Petitioner’s Advocate was present, but Sub Divisional Officer was unavailable on account of administrative reason. Hearing was therefore adjourned to 6th July, 2010. Prior thereto, a notice was given and it is therefore, clear that the Petitioner was aware of third date i.e. 6th July, 2010 . However, the Petitioner was not present on 6th July, 2010 nor was his Advocate. The matter was adjourned because the Sub Divisional Officer desired to peruse the original record. On 10th August, 2010, it was observed that the original record is still not available. 6 In these circumstances, the matter stood adjourned for more than two months to 18th August, 2010. Thus, the Petitioner and their Advocate may not have remained present on the dates subsequent to 13th April, 2010, Yet, if the Sub Divisional Officer had directed production of the original record and the same was not produced till 18th October, 2010, then, in the absence of any notice to the Petitioners, the Sub Divisional Officer could not have proceeded in their absence. In other words, for the conclusion of the Sub Divisional Officer that the :3: 933.wp.9808.10 Petitioner repeatedly remained absent, despite notice, something more was necessary to be produced. If the case was not closed by him, he could have given one final opportunity to both the sides to peruse the record and then make their submissions. By that process, no prejudice would have been caused to anybody. Now, if the record indicates that the Petitioner had no adequate or proper notice of hearing, then impugned order of the Sub Divisional Officer cannot be sustained. The same is therefore, quashed and set aside. 7 The Revision Application No. 90 of 2009 is restored to the file of the Sub Divisional Officer for being decided afresh on merits and in accordance with law. The parties to appear before the Court on 10th August, 2011 at 10.30 a.m. The Sub Divisional Officer then to conclude the hearing within a period of eight weeks from the date of appearance. The ad-interim order passed by this Court on 10th December, 2010 shall continue till the Revision Application is heard and disposed of, but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides. 8 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. 9 The Writ Petition is disposed off in the above terms. No costs. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI , J.)