1 wp 2179.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2179 OF 2011 Mahadeo Eknath Kotkar, Age : 41 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Eknathnagar Kedgaon, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. The Tahsildar, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2182 OF 2011 Ramdas Bajirao Kalapahad, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Kedgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner 2 wp 2179.11 Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. The Tahsildar, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents Shri A. K. Gawali, Advocate for Petitioners in both matters. Smt. R. K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The notice for final disposal was issued on 23.03.2011, in view of that the writ petitions are being disposed of finally. 3 wp 2179.11 3. The present petitioners had filed revision before the Additional Commissioner purportedly U/Sec. 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, thereby challenging order of levy of royalty and penalty. The commissioner passed an order directing the petitioners to deposit 50% of the amount with the Tahsildar and only after deposit of the said amount of 50% the revisions would be admitted and considered on merits. The said order is assailed in the present writ petitions. 4. Smt. Ladda, the learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the order passed and submits that it was within the competence of the Commissioner to pass such an order. The statute nowhere prohibits the Commissioner from passing such orders. Huge amount is due towards the petitioner and so in the interest of justice the order passed is perfectly valid. 5. Perusal of the phraseology of Section 257, it is manifest that the said provisions nowhere lays down a condition of pre deposit of an amount for entertaining revision nor does it authorize the authority entertaining revision to lay down such a condition of pre deposit for considering the revision on merits. The authority cannot travel beyond the provisions governing the 4 wp 2179.11 revisions. 6. The impugned order directing the petitioners to deposit 50% of the amount as a condition for entertaining the revision on merits is an order coram non judice and as such cannot sustain. 7. In view of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The rule is accordingly made absolute. The commissioner shall register the said revisions if otherwise they comply with all other legal requirements and deal with the same on merits after affording an opportunity to respective parties. No costs. 8. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2179/2011 has deposited 50% of the amount pursuant to the orders of this Court. In the light of that, the order impugned in revision is stayed till the disposal of the revision. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11