1 wp-6645 & 6653-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6645 OF 2010 Sudarshan Vasudeo Loyalka ..Petitioner Versus The Sub Divisional Officer Alibaug Sub Division & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6653 OF 2010 Mahesh Patel & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus The Sub Divisional Officer. Alibaug Sub Division & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ranbir Singh i/b. Mr. Yatin Shah for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6645 of 2010 Mr. Ranbir Singh along with Hamed Kadiani i/b. ALMT Legal for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.665e of 2010 Mr. Samir Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 in Writ Petition No.5545 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.6653 of 2010. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE: 19th October, 2010. P.C. Both these petitions impugn the notice dated 1st June, 2010 issued by 2 wp-6645 & 6653-10 the Sub Divisional Officer, Alibag Sub Division at Alibag and it is purported to be issued in Review Application No.4 of 2009. 2. The said impugned notice specifically refers to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1722 of 2010 and 1723 of 2010 on 11th March, 2010 and it also states that as per the said order passed by this Court the earlier orders regarding deletion of mutation entries were set aside. Obvious reference is to the order dated 21st December, 2009 and 1st January, 2010 which were the subject matter in both the above referred petitions. 3. It is pertinent to note that this Court in the order dated 11th March, 2010 held that the orders dated 21st December, 2009 and the amended order dated 1st January, 2010 were passed without issuing notice to Shri Loyalka. The relevant observations made by this Court in the order dated 11th March, 2010 read as under:- “We do not propose to go into the question whether the Sub- Divisional Officer has reviewed or has revised that order. We also do not propose to go into the question whether the exercise of revisional power is within the period of limitation or beyond the 3 wp-6645 & 6653-10 period of limitation. Because, according to us the order is liable to be set aside because admittedly show cause notice was not given to Mr. Loyalka, who is petitioner in Writ Petition No.1722. By sale deed dated 14-2-1991, the land was transferred in favour of predecessor-in-title of Loyalka. Mutation Entry was taken on 30th March, 1991 and one of the entries that has been set aside by the order impugned is Mutation Entry No.458. Because relying upon Mutation Entry No.458, Loyalka had purchased by registered sale deed dated 16-5-1997 a part of the land which was mutated in favour of his predecessor-in-title, in or opinion, issuance of show cause notice to Mr. Loyalka in relation to Mutation Entry No.458 was mandatory. Cancellation of Mutation Entry No.458 adversely affected the interest of Loyalka and therefore, in our opinion, cancellation of Mutation Entry No.458 cannot be held to be valid, and therefore, has to be set aside. If order setting aside Mutation Entry No.458 is set aside, then the order cancelling other entries which depend on Entry No.458 also cannot survive. Second aspect to be seen is that though there is a controversy between the parties whether notices were properly served on the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.1723 of 2010 or not, fact remains that they have not 4 wp-6645 & 6653-10 appeared and submitted their replies to the show cause notices, and the order in so far as they are concerned has been made without considering their point of view. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice:- O R D E R (i) The order dated 21st December, 2009, as amended by order dated 1-1-2010 is set aside. (ii) The Sub Divisional Officer shall be at liberty to take such action as he may be advised, in accordance with law. (iii) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (iv) All contentions available to both sides are kept open.” 4. Writ Petition No.1722 of 2010 was filed by Sudarshan Vasudeo Loyalka and Writ Petition No.1723 of 2010 was filed by Mahesh Patel & Others. The impugned notices have been undoubtedly and as noted earlier, issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 11th March, 2010 and with an intention that the petitioners are heard while deciding afresh the challenge to Mutation Entry No.458 and the consequent Mutation Entries namely 1251 to 1254, 1569, 1270 and 1271. In keeping with the principles of natural justice, the notices are issued so that the 5 wp-6645 & 6653-10 petitioners could appear before the Sub Divisional Officer and put up their defence including limitation and other issues which have been specifically left open by this Court in its order dated 11th March, 2010. Though the application is titled as Review Application No.4 of 2009 it is clear in the earlier order passed by this Court that it could be a Revision Application. However, we only direct that the impugned notice shall be treated as a show cause notice in the application that has been submitted to set aside the Mutation Entry No.458 and all consequential entries made thereafter and referred to hereinabove. The order passed by this Court on 11th March, 2010 is clear and these petitions are frivolous, to say the least. 5. Petitions are disposed off with the above clarifications. ( U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)