(1) WP 9414.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9414 OF 2010 1. Sandipan S/o Prabhu Ghadge Age : 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chikhurda Tq. and Dist. Latur 2. Sangeeta w/o Sandipan Ghadge, Age : 30 years, Occu. Household, R/o as above Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Latur, Dist. Latur 3. The Tahsildar, Latur, Dist. Latur 4. Dagdu S/o Sopan @ Gopal Kapse Age : Major, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chikhurda, Tq. and Dist. Latur Respondents ..... Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate h/f. Mr. L.H. Kavale, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader for the Respondent nos. 1 to 3-State. None present for the respondent no.4 though served. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. (2) WP 9414.2010 2. By this Petition, the petitioners challenge the judgment dated 18.6.2010 rendered by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Latur, in proceedings no. 2008/ROR/A-28. 3. The dispute relates to a road which passes through land gat no. 78 situated at village Chikhurda (Tq. Latur). The respondent no.4 initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 for removal of the encroachment caused by the petitioners on the disputed road and for injunction. The respondent no.4 sought restoration of the use of the disputed road which passes through land gat no.78. It was the contention of the respondent no.4 that the petitioners had obstructed the road and thus the public members, including himself, were unable to use the disputed road (way). It appears that the Mamlatdar, Latur visited the spot and issued injunction order dated 26.2.2010 after making further enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred the revision application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Latur. While the revision application was pending, the (3) WP 9414.2010 respondent no.4 filed interim application and placed on record a copy of the plaint filed in civil suit bearing R.C.S. 473 of 2009. Respondent no.4 urged to dispose of the revision application in view of the fact that the matter pertaining to the same issue was pending before the civil Court. The learned Sub Divisional Officer was pleased to allow the application and disposed of the revision petition vide the impugned judgment and order. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that no opportunity of hearing was given to them while passing the impugned judgment and order. They submit that the learned Sub Divisional Officer did not give them opportunity to file their reply on the application moved by the respondent no.4 on 17.3.2010 and all of a sudden rendered the impugned judgment and order. 5. The only question involved in this Petition is whether the petitioners were given due opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned judgment and order or that they were denied of such opportunity and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is (4) WP 9414.2010 rendered in breach of the principles of the natural justice. 6. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. S.V. Kurunkdar. Though served, the respondent no.4 did not appear before this Court. 7. Perusal of the reply affidavit filed by the Tashildar, Latur, namely Mahesh Narayanrao Sawant would indicate the fact that he had visited the spot personally and after making certain enquiry, had noticed the encroachment on the existing road which was under use of the villagers. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that due opportunity was given to the petitioners for the purpose of deciding the interim application filed by the respondent no.4. The impugned judgment and order purports to show that the proceedings were terminated by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Latur only for the reason that the suit bearing R.C.S. no. 473 of 2009 was pending before the trial Court. Mere pendency of such suit, by itself could not have been the sufficient reason to dispose of the revision application whereby the (5) WP 9414.2010 net result was to the effect that the order of the Mamlatdar came to be confirmed without deciding merits of the matter. That could not have been done at the back of the petitioners. Needless to say, the impugned order is violative of the principles of the natural justice. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The proceedings are remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer, Latur for decision in accordance with law by giving due opportunity to both the parties and taking decision on the merits of the matter. No costs. Rule made absolute accordingly. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp