wp2318-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2318 OF 2010 Sau.Shobhabai Bapu Pawar & Anr .. Petitioners versus Chindha Tukaram Khairnar .. Respondent Mr.Sachin Pawar with Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the petitioners. Mr.N.R.Bubna for the respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] The Revision Application under section 23 of the Mamlatdar's Court's Act 1906 has been decided on 29th August 2009. The order of Tahsildar has been affirmed and that is why the aggrieved original opponents are before me. From the record it is clear that the application was made invoking section 5 of the said Act by one Chidha Khairnar. Petitioners are the opponents/ opposite parties to this application. A direction was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, they invoked revisional wp2318-10.doc 2 jurisdiction of the SDO. During the course of hearing before Tahsildar as also before the Revisional Authority, the petitioners raised specific contention that this matter has been remanded by an order dated 30th July 2007. However, the Tahsildar relied upon old records and confirmed virtually the same findings which have been interfered with and set aside by the Revisional Authority. From a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that there is no reference to this argument leave alone dealing with the same and give reasons for rejecting it. It is not clear as to whether after the remand order, panchanama at site had been prepared. In these circumstances, the order of the revisional authority is vitiated by total non application of mind and it deserves to be set aside. 2] Without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions, interest of justice would be served if the RTS Revision Application No.27 of 2008 is directed to be decided afresh by SDO Malegaon. He shall do so as expeditiously as possible and within eight weeks from today. However, while wp2318-10.doc 3 deciding the application afresh, he shall not be influenced by any of the conclusions and findings in the impugned order. He must decide the revision application after hearing both sides and on perusal of complete record. Petition is allowed in these terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)