1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5725 OF 2009 1] Mahadeo s/o. Waman Mahadik, Age 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, 2] Balul s/o. Sadashiv Mahadik Age 25 years, Occ. Agriculture, 3] Dattu s/o. Sadashiv Mahadik Age 22 years, Occ. Agriculture, All Resident of Mahadik Vasti Sheri (Khurd) Taluka Ashti, District Beed. .. Petitioners Versus 1] State of Maharashtra Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 through its Secretary 2] The Tahsildar, Ashti, Taluka Ashti, Dist. Beed. 3] Jagannath Pandharinath Dhoble Age major, Occ. Agril, R/o. Sheri (Kh) Mahadik Vasti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. .. Respondents. --- Mr. Ram Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.G. Shelke, AGP for respondents Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for respondent nO.3. 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 18th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] It is the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar Ashti, dated 28/7/2009, has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that though the hearing was fixed on 22/7/2007, the Tahsildar was not present and as such, the hearing could not take place. It is the case of the petitioner that no further date of hearing was intimated and all of a sudden, an order came to be passed on 28th July, 2009. 3] The said position appears to be undisputed. It is a settled principle of law that no order, inviting adverse civil consequences can be passed against a party, without affording such a party, an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 4] In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, taking into consideration the nature of the controversy, I find that it will be necessary that the matter is decided by the Tahsildar, on remand, as expeditiously as possible. 5] Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C). The Tahsildar is directed to decide the matter afresh, after giving an 3 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent NO.3 and other villagers. The Tahsildar may also carry out a spot inspection so as to ascertain the submission made on behalf of the rival parties. Needless to state that the spot inspection, if any, shall be carried in the presence of the parties. The petitioner so also the respondent No.3 shall appear before the Tahsildar, on 23rd November, 2009. As such, the formal notices of the proceedings before the Tahsildar shall stand waived. After appearance of the parties before it, the Tahsildar would decide the matter as expediously as possible and in any case within one month from the date of appearance. Needless to state that this court has not considered the petition on merits, but the same is being allowed only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is further made clear that all issues raised by the rival parties shall be considered on their own merits by the Tahsildar. An authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, to act upon. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-