1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2008 IN Writ Petition No. 2172 of 2007 1. Smt. Nandabai w/o. Raosaheb Arsude, age 48 years, occ. household, R/o. Sundar Moti Nivas, Sunmitra Colony, Nanded. 2. Govind s/o. Raosaheb Arsude, age 22 years, occ. eduation, R/o. Sundar Moti Niwas, Sunmitra Mira Colony, Nanded.- - Appellants versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Sahebrao s/o. Motiram Arsude, age 59years, occu. agriculture, R/o. Pakhandi vis Pasadgaon, taluka and district Nanded. 3. Vijay s/o. Shridharacharya Katti, age 59 years, occ. service, R/o. Sunmitra Colony, Nanded. 4. Venkatesh s/o. Gangadharrao Inamdar, age 36 years, occ. business, R/o. Sunmitra Colony, Nanded. 2 5. Vivek s/o. Gangadharrao Inamdar, age 33 years, occ. business, R/o. Sunmitra Colony, Nanded. - Respondents Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate with Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for petitioners. Shri S. K. Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondents No.1. Shri G. N. Chincholkar, Advocate for Respondents Nos.2, 4 and 5. Respondent No.3 is deleted. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 27th July 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ Per B. R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. By consent, appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. By way of present appeal, the appellants challenge the Order dated 22-11-2007 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide which the petition filed by present petitioners was dismissed in limine. 3. It appears that there is a dispute between the petitioners over the shares in Gat No.161. 4. The mutation entry was entered in favour of Respondent No. 2 herein in the year 1975 by the Superintendent of Land Records. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants had preferred an appeal 3 before the Deputy Director of Land Records. The same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved thereby, a Revision was preferred by the petitioners before the State Government. The said Revision was dismissed vide Order dated 29-1-2007. Being aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 2172 of 2007. The same is also summarily dismissed. Hence, present appeal. 5. Shri Salunke, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants, submits that the Revision was dismissed by Respondent No.1 State Government without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. He submits that unless the appellants were given an opportunity of hearing, order adverse to the interest of the appellants could not have been passed. He, therefore, submits that learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the petition. 6. Shri Chincholkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2, on the contrary, submits that Respondent No.1 has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. He submits that even after the entry was entered in favour of the Respondent No.2, though the father of the appellant No.2 and husband of petitioner No.1 was alive for eight years, no steps were 4 taken for correcting the mutation entry. He, therefore, submits that the Revision is rightly dismissed by the State Government and the petition is rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 7. It appears that from the Order passed by this Court, the Division Bench vide Order dated 13-7-2009 has specifically directed the State Government to explain as to whether the order impugned in the writ petition was passed after hearing the parties or not. 8. Learned A.G.P. Shri Kadam submits that in view of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, unless it is found that the order is to be reversed or varied, it is not necessary that the parties interested should be given notice and heard in the matter. 9. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by one Tatoba s/o. Maroti Kolekar, Under Secretary in the Revenue and Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra, stating therein as under :- " The revision application is disposed of without hearing both parties on the ground that, the competent authority of subordinate officer had rightly decided the matter on merits on the ground of delay for filing appeal." 5 10. It is thus clear that the order in Revision dated 29-1-2007 was passed without notice or without hearing the rival parties. Sub section (3) of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 reads thus : (3) If in any case, it shall appear to the State Government, or to any officer referred to it in sub section (1) or sub-section (2) that any decision or order or proceedings so-called for should be modified, annulled, or reversed, it or he may pass such order thereon as it or he deems fit. Provided that, the State Government or such officer shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any question of right between private persons without having given to the parties interested notice to appear and to be heard in support of such order : Provided further that, an Assistant or Deputy Collector shall not himself pass such order in any matter in which a formal inquiry has been held, but shall submit the record with his opinion to the Collector, who shall pass such order thereon as he may deem fit. On the basis of aforesaid provision, specifically the proviso thereto, the learned A.G.P. tries to submit that an opportunity of hearing is 6 not necessary since the order impugned before the learned Single Judge did not vary or reverse the order passed by Deputy Director of Land Records. 11. We are unable to accept the contention raised by learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader in that respect. Though proviso of sub section (3) of Section 257 provides that the State Government or such officer shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any question of right between the parties without giving opportunity to the parties interested and notice to appear and to be heard in support of such order. We do not find anything in this section which implies exclusion of principles of natural justice. 12. The Apex Court in the case of C. B. Gautam vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1993) 1 S.C.C. 78, has held that the statute does not provide for observance of principles of natural justice, unless impliedly or by statutory implication, the observance of principles of natural justice is excluded. From the perusal of Sub-section (3) of Section 257, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned A.G.P. for the State that the requirement of observance of principles of natural justice is by implication taken away from the said provision. In that view of the 7 matter, we find that the order passed by Respondent No.1 dated 29-1-2007 which was admittedly passed without following principles of natural justice was not sustainable in law. 13. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The Order dated 22-11-2007 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2172 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. The petition filed by present petitioners is partly allowed by quashing and setting aside the Order dated 29-1-2007 passed by Respondent No.1. The matter is remitted back to Respondent No.1 for hearing Revision filed by present petitioners on its own merits. 14. The parties would appear before the Respondent No.1 on 10th August 2009 and as such the requirement of formal notice shall stand waived. The Respondent No.1 shall decide the Revision within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 15. Authenticated copy be supplied to learned A.G.P. to act upon. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) 8