( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 710 OF 2002 Poma Totaram Chavan Since deceased, by L.Rs. 1. Dharma Poma Chavan 2. Rohidas Poma Chavan 3. Vitthal Poma Chavan 4. Smt. Hirabai Poma Chavan 5. Smt. Shantabai Hardas Chavan All r/o at post Sangavi, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 6. Smt. Pyaribai Devarsing Rathod, R/o Galan, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. 7. Sau. Suman Bhavarlal Rathod, R/o Dhobi Varad, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. PETITIONERS VERSUS Tarachand Totaram Chavan Since deceased, by L.Rs. 1. Chintaman Tarachand Chavan 2. Suresh Tarachand Chavan 3. Jankibai Tarachand Chavan 4. Sagunabai Tarachand Chavan 5. Taibai Tarachand Chavan All r/o Sangavi, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. Hardas Totaram Chavhan Since deceased, by L.Rs. 6. Chensing Hardas Chavan 7. Gana Hardas Chavan 8. Anil Hardas Chavan 9. Gokul Hardas Chavan ( 2 ) 10. Pintu Hardas Chavan All r/o at post Sangavi, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 11. The State of Maharashtra. RESPONDENTS ..... Smt. Sangit, advocate holding for Mr. L.V. Sangit, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.B. Patil, advocate for respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent No. 11/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 7th July, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners impugn order rendered by the Officer on Special Duty (Appeals), Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai in proceedings bearing No. R.T.S. 3297/PK467/L6/PK159/2001AVP. By the impugned order, the learned Officer on Special Duty allowed the revision application filed by the respondents and reversed the order dated 03-12-1996, rendered by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division and the order dated 23-02-1996, rendered by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon whereby Mutation Entry No. 110 was approved and sanctioned. Thus, the revisional ( 3 ) authority directed cancellation of Mutation Entry No. 1110 and restored order dated 21-03-1994 rendered by the Sub Divisional Officer. 2. The dispute relates to Mutation Entry No. 1110 which was sanctioned in name of the predecessor of the petitioners, namely, deceased Tarachand Totaram Chavan. According to the petitioners, land gat No. 81/2, admeasuring 5 hectors 26 Ares situated at village Sangavi under Chalisgaon Tahsil was mutated in name of deceased Tarachand Totaram. The Talathi recorded Mutation Entry in his name to the extent of 40 Ares land which was in his possession. There was earlier round of litigation when the Mutation Entry No. 1110 was challenged by the contesting respondents No. 1 to 10. They preferred an appeal against the Mutation Entry. The appeal bearing No. 26/1992 was allowed on 28-08-1992 by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Mutation Entry was cancelled. The petitioners preferred second appeal bearing No. 78/1992 which was partly allowed by the Additional Collector by his order dated 05-11-1992. The learned Additional Collector remanded the matter to the ( 4 ) Sub Divisional Officer. After remand of the matter, the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora, confirmed his earlier order regarding cancellation of the Mutation Entry No. 1110. The petitioners preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Collector by order dated 23-02-1996 in appeal No. 84/1994. He confirmed the Mutation Entry No. 1110. The respondents No. 1 to 10 preferred second appeal which came to be dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, on 03-12-1996. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents No. 1 to 5 preferred revision application bearing R.T.S. No. 32/97/PK.467/L6/PK/159/2001/AVP. The revision application was heard by learned Secretary and Officer on Special Duty (Appeals), Revenue and Forest Department. The learned Officer on Special Duty allowed the revision application by the impugned order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 4. The foundation of the Mutation Entry No. 1110 dated 05-11-1988 is said to be actual possession of the ( 5 ) petitioners to the extent of 40 Ares land out of land gat No. 81/2. It was contention of the respondents No. 1 to 10 that the said land was mutated in name of Tarachand Totaram. They contended that merely because the application was given by the petitioners, and their possession was found over area to the extent of 40 Ares, the mutation entry was sanctioned without there being any registered document to indicate transfer of the land in favour of the petitioners. This contention of the respondents No. 1 to 10 appears to have been accepted by the learned Secretary and Officer on Special Duty. 5. Significantly, the issue regarding correctness of the mutation entry was required to be decided in the quasi-judicial proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The impugned order reveals that the Officer on Special Duty dealt with the revision application in accordance with the powers available to him under the Standing Orders, issued by the Government on 16th July, 2001. The question involved in this petition is whether the Officer on Special Duty can be regarded as duly authorized person to deal with ( 6 ) such appeal/revision which the Government is required to consider. It is necessary to examine whether the Officer on Special Duty could be delegated with such appellate power or revisional jurisdiction under the Standing Orders dated 16th July, 2001. This question is no more res integra. A Full Bench of this Court in “Sheikh Mohamed Fatemohamed v. Raisuddin Azimuddin Katil and others” 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 850, held that the quasi- judicial functions would be out of the purview of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. It is held that by virtue of rules of business of the Government, which are framed in exercise of powers under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution, allocation of business amongst different Ministers would be permissible to the extent it relates to administration and control of the State power. It is held by this Court that the quasi-judicial power cannot be termed as business of the Government and, therefore, it would fall outside the pale of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. In other words, such a quasi-judicial business cannot be delegated by the Government to the Officer on Special ( 7 ) Duty. The delegation of such power is impermissible and, therefore, the Officer on Special Duty had no jurisdiction to decide the revision application preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 5. 6. A Single Bench of this Court in “Ramesh T. Gopalani v. Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.Kalyan and another” 2000 (3) Mh.L.J. 115, held that second revision was not maintainable. It has been held that revision application could not have been entertained by the State Government. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 would submit that in absence of the Special Officer on Duty as party to the petition, the petitioners cannot claim any relief against the impugned order. I do not agree. The joining of quasi-judicial authority is not necessary when such authority is represented by the State. In fact, the Officer on Special Duty has usurped powers available to the State though such delegation of the powers is impermissible and unknown to the law. Considering these aspects of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the ( 8 ) impugned order, rendered by the Officer on Special Duty, is erroneous and without jurisdiction. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order will have to be quashed. The petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the rule is made absolute. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP710-02