{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7773 OF 2010 Narayan s/o Kisan Shelke and others Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.B.S.Shinde, advocate holding for Mr.V.P.Latange, advocate for petitioners. Mr.D.R.Tele, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.N.V.Gaware, advocate for Respondents No.4 to 8. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. DATE : 19 th September, 2011 PER COURT: 1 This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 07.07.2010, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Karjat in Revision No.1/2009, thereby confirming the order dated 13.12.2008, passed by the Tahsildar, Shrigonda in Case No.14/2006. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the order passed by Tahsildar. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further invited my attention to the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in the Revision. It is his submission that none of the contentions raised by the petitioners have been {2} gone into by the Revisional Authority and in mechanical manner, the Revisional Authority has passed the impugned order. 3 Learned Counsel appearing for contesting respondents submits that while confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar, it was not necessary for the Revisional Authority to give separate reasons and the Revisional Authority has confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar. According to the learned Counsel for contesting respondents, the Tahsildar, Shrigonda, after issuing notices to the parties, after recording statements and after applying his mind, passed the order on 13.12.2008 and, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order. 4 I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. In the present case, I feel it appropriate not to touch merits of the matter, suffice it to say that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Karjat on 07.07.2010 in Revision No. 01/2009, is without assigning any reasons as to why the Revisional Authority is confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar. Even contentions of the parties have not been recorded by the Revisional Authority. Such order, which is without any reasons whatsoever, cannot be sustained. In fact, the order passed by the Tahsildar is on certain factual aspects and if party aggrieved files proceedings before the higher authority, it is incumbent upon such authority to pass reasoned order. In the present case, {3} though the Revisional Authority wanted to confirm the order passed by the Tahsildar, brief reasons should have been recorded after recording contentions of the parties. On careful perusal of the order of the Revisional Authority, it is clear that such reasons are not assigned. 5 On this count alone, the order dated 07.07.2010, passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Karjat in Revision No.01/2009 is quashed and set aside. Said Revision No.01/2009 is restored to its original file before the Sub Divisional Officer, Karjat Division, Karjat. Said Revision to be heard and decided denovo by the Revisional Authority within three months from the receipt of order passed by this Court. It is needless to mention that the interim order granted by the Revisional Authority, during pendency of Revision, would remain in operation till disposal of the Revision. 6 Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent and disposed of accordingly. It is needless to state that this Court has not touched merits of the matter and it is left to the parties to agitate all the contentions available to them before the Revisional Authority. S.S.SHINDE JUDGE adb/wp777310