1 wp 5907.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5907 OF 2007 1. Govind Raosaheb Patil, Age : 67 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Kanheri, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Shriram S/o Raosaheb Patil, Age : 61 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Kanheri, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Dnyanoba S/o Ambadas Taware, Age : 28 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Pimpalgaon (Lingi), Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Rameshwar S/o Ambadas Taware, Age : 24 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Pimpalgaon (Lingi), Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. 3. Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri K. B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. 2 wp 5907.07 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 06TH JULY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard Shri Salunke, the learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S. S. Thombre, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the judgment passed by the authorities under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, with regard to maintenance of record of rights. 2. Shri Salunke, the learned counsel for petitioners states that since 1993-1994 the names of petitioners appear in the revenue record in the ownership and cultivation column of the property bearing Sy. No. 92. For the first time in the year 2003-2004 the Tahsildar set aside the entry of the petitioners without issuing notice to the petitioners. The said order of the Tahsildar dated 24.11.2003 was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer by the petitioners who allowed the appeal. The respondents filed further appeal before the Collector, who also dismissed the revision. Aggrieved thereby the present respondents filed revision before the Commissioner who allowed the said revision on the ground that it was a correction of name 3 wp 5907.07 U/Sec. 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The learned counsel contends that the whole proceedings are without notice to the petitioners. As such, are bad in law. Even otherwise names of the petitioners could not have been deleted. The Tahsildar did not have the jurisdiction in as much as the proceedings were under Consolidation Act and the Tahsildar could not have invoked the jurisdiction. The learned counsel further contends that the jurisdiction only vest with the Collector and not the Tahsildar. 3. Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that no error can be found in the judgment of Commissioner. The commissioner has taken into consideration the fact that the Tahsildar while correcting entry has taken into consideration the report of the talathi and on consideration of the material has corrected the entries of the names. The name of the grand father of the present respondent was already appearing in the revenue record and it is not a case of new insertion/deletion of the name. According to the learned counsel this Court in its writ jurisdiction would not interfere with the order of the Commissioner. 4 wp 5907.07 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the judgment and the proceedings. The record does not suggest that before correcting/deleting the name of the petitioners, the Tahsildar had at any point of time issued notice to the petitioners. The names of the petitioners were appearing in the revenue record since the year 1993-1994 till the date of deletion of the names i. e. up to 2003. The cardinal and fundamental principle of natural justice demand that when an order is being passed which is detrimental to the interest of party, a notice is required to be given to the said party. As such, without going to the merits of the matter and all other aspects, I am of the opinion that the orders passed cannot be sustained solely on the ground that no notice was given to the petitioners. In such circumstances, I relegate the parties to the original authorities i. e. the Tahsildar who shall decide the rival claims between the parties after giving an opportunity to all the parties. The parties shall appear before the Tahsildar on 25th July, 2011. The Tahsildar shall thereafter decide the proceedings before it within a period of three months. It is made clear that I have not dealt with any of the issues on merits and all issues raised by the respective parties including the issue of jurisdiction is kept open. In the light of above, all the orders passed by the authorities i. e. 5 wp 5907.07 order of the Tahsildar dated 24.11.2003 and all other consequent orders thereof are quashed and set aside. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11 Authenticated Copy ( B. S. Bodke ) P. A. to Hon'ble Judge