1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 910 OF 2010 1. VASANT S/O SADASHIV AMRUTKAR AND 2 ORS R/O CHANDGAON, BRAMHAPURI, CHANDRAPUR 2. DHARMA S/O SADASHIV AMRUTKAR R/O CHANDGAON, BRAMHAPURI, CHANDRAPUR 3. DEVIDAS S/O SADASHIV AMRUTKAR R/O CHANDGAON, BRAMHAPURI, CHANDRAPUR .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. STATE OF MAH. THR. S.D.O. CHANDRAPUR AND 5 ORS BRAMHAPURI, CHANDRAPUR 2. MANOHAR S/O WATU MASRAM R/O CHANDGAON, BRAMHAPURI, CHANDRAPUR 2 3. JANARDHAN S/O WATU MASRAM R/O CHANDGAON, BRAMHAPURI, CHANDRAPUR 4. SHANTA W/O DIWAKAR PANDAM R/O UTI, SINDEWAHI, CHANDRAPUR 5. KANTA W/O SHANKAR KUMRE R/O BIKLI NAGBHID, CHANDRAPUR 6. YASHODA WD/O WATUR MASRAM R/O CHANDGAON, BRAMHAPURI, CHANDRAPUR .. RESPONDENTS Shri. M. B. Badhiye, Counsel for the petitioners. Smt. K. R. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent-1. Shri Ramesh Darda, Counsel for respondents 2 to 6. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI J. Date: 8th SEPTEMBER 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard finally by consent of parties. Short contention of learned counsel Shri Badhiye is under Section 7, the review into the matter could have been allowed only by State Government or the 3 Commissioner. The proceedings for restoration of land belonging to tribals respondents 2 to 6 were already closed and as there is no such order passed by competent authority under Section 7 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands To Scheduled Tribes Act, the impugned order of S. D. O. dated 22.04.2002 and the judgment in appeal by M. R. T. Nagpur dated 18.12.2009 are unsustainable. Learned AGP for respondent no.1 as also Shri Darda learned counsel for respondents 2 to 6 have contended that the action has been initiated properly and in accordance with law. As the proceedings were taken up for scrutiny and then reopening was found necessary, the question of limitation does not arise. 2] Learned AGP has relied upon the communication dated 28.10.1994 issued by Desk Officer. The said communication shows that in total 105 proceedings review under section 7 was contemplated and therefore the State Government directed Commissioner to exercise powers under Section 7 in those matters. 3] This letter itself shows that the earlier orders of reopening 4 passed by S. D. O. and Additional Tahsildar in Bramhapuri Sub Division were found to be unsustainable and Desk Officer therefore directed the Commissioner to fix responsibility for such abuse of power by those authorities. This communication in any case cannot and does not modify Section 7 in any way and contemplates the decision under Section 7 to be taken by Commissioner only. No decision taken by Commissioner has been pointed out to this Court. On the contrary affidavit reply filed on behalf of S. D. O. shows that after receipt of said communication, S. D. O. himself had issued notices to parties for rehearing. 4] Order of S. D. O. and consequently appellate order are therefore unsustainable. Same are accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. However, in the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs. JUDGE svk