1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1182/2010. Maroti Tukaram Tekam -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MAY 03, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri J.Y. Ghurde, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Shri Zoting with Shri A.R. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7. The order of S.L.D.T. Maregaon dated 19.11.2007 was questioned by the petitioner by filing a Revision under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961 before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. That Revision has been rejected on the ground that it has been presented by an Advocate and appearance of Advocate is barred because of provisions of Section 44B of the Act. Shri Ghurde, learned counsel argues that the approach is too technical and the revision could not have been dismissed on such ground without notice to the petitioner. 2 Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6 and 7 argues that revision as presented is not in accordance with the law and in writ jurisdiction, if this court interferes, the illegality will be restored. It is further argued that the petitioner has no locus to move such revision and he has been approaching various authorities and making roving attempts. Contention is petitioner has been abusing the process of law and taking undue advantage thereof. Learned A.G.P. supports the argument of Shri Zooting and Shri Sharma, learned counsel and states that as there is absolute bar the revision has been rightly dismissed. The provisions of Ceiling Act are for welfare and an aggrieved person has been conferred with remedy of revision. It is correct that there is absolute bar and an Advocate cannot appear in the matter, but then the revision presented by an Advocate cannot be treated as a revision filed at the instance of the Advocate and the Advocate acts at the instance of his client and therefore the revision as presented is presented for the petitioner. Thus merely because the revision is filed by petitioner through Advocate it could not have been rejected. Rejection of revision without entertaining it is not permissible. It is not refusal to accept filing of revision. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside and the revision proceedings are restored back to the file of respondent no.2. Engagement and appearance of Advocate therein shall be ignored. All objections raised about locus of 3 petitioner or then about the alleged abuse of legal process by him, are kept open and can be considered by the revisional authority in accordance with law. The proceedings in revision be decided as early as possible and in any case by 30.09.2010. Parties to appear before the respondent no.2 on 17.05.2010 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.