{"id":268356,"date":"2002-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002"},"modified":"2018-01-06T23:22:42","modified_gmt":"2018-01-06T17:52:42","slug":"sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"Sambappa S\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through &#8230; on 17 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sambappa S\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through &#8230; on 17 December, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Naik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A Naik<\/div>\n<p id=\"p_1\">JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> A.B. Naik, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\"> 1. In this petition the petitioner sought<br \/>\nfollowing reliefs. :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\"> &#8220;(A)Call for the Record and Proceedings of<br \/>\nRev. Revision<br \/>\nNo.RTS-5391\/CR-199\/L-6\/CR-44\/93, A &amp; R.<br \/>\nfrom the Respondent No.ls Office i.e. from<br \/>\nthe Officer on Special Duty and Secretary,<br \/>\n(Appeals and Revision), Revenue and Forest<br \/>\nDepartment, Government of Maharashtra,<br \/>\nBombay, and  <\/p>\n<p> (B)The writ petition be allowed and the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment and order passed by the<br \/>\nrespondent No.l on 2.ll.1993 vide Exhibit<br \/>\nH be set aside and to sanction the<br \/>\nrectification of ROR entries in favour of<br \/>\nthe petitioner i.e. Mutation No.666 vide<br \/>\nExhibit C&#8221; based on the actual possession<br \/>\nof the land in question.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\"> 2. Few facts that are necessary to be<br \/>\nconsidered in deciding this writ petition. The<br \/>\nrespondents herein\/original revision petitioner filed<br \/>\nrevision Application U\/s 257 of the Maharashtra Land<br \/>\nRevenue Code before the Additional Commissioner,<br \/>\nAurangabad Division, Aurangabad in which the present<br \/>\npetitioner was the opponent. The parties will be<br \/>\nreferred to as per their description before the<br \/>\nRevisional authority i.e. State Government and they<br \/>\nwill be referred to hereinafter as revisional<br \/>\npetitioner and opponent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\"> 3. Land S.No.86 admeasuring 33 acres 37<br \/>\ngunthas situate at village Ahmedpur, Taluka Ahmedpur,<br \/>\nDistrict Latur. (hereinafter referred to as the suit<br \/>\nland) was admittedly owned and possessed by one Babu<br \/>\nTeli, who died leaving behind him three sons. It is<br \/>\nthe case of the parties that after death of Babu Teli<br \/>\nthe land was divided amongst the brothers on the<br \/>\nbasis of the fertility of the land. It appears from<br \/>\nthe record that intimation was given to the revenue<br \/>\nauthorities as required U\/s 149 of the Maharashtra<br \/>\nLand Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\nCode). Pursuant to the said intimation, Tahsildar<br \/>\nconducted spot inspection some time in the year 1964<br \/>\nand he noticed that the division was not equal and<br \/>\nrejected the theory of partition and ordered that<br \/>\neach brothers had equal share in the suit land. On<br \/>\nthe basis of the decision of the Tahsildar a mutation<br \/>\nentry has been taken and certified on 5.ll.1964 being<br \/>\nmutation entry No.299. Vide this mutation entry the<br \/>\nnames of three brothers i.e. the sons of deceased<br \/>\nBaburao Teli were recorded in respect of the suit<br \/>\nland in equal shares.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\"> 4. This position was continued till 1979 and<br \/>\nin the year 1979 the opponent Sambhappa gave an<br \/>\napplication to Tahsildar that he was cultivating<br \/>\nS.No.86\/1\/3 admeasuring l hectare 58 Ares but on that<br \/>\nportion the name of his brother Bandappa is recorded<br \/>\nin Kabjedars column, and he requested the Tahsildar<br \/>\nto delete the name of Bandappa and record his name as<br \/>\nKabjedar in 7\/12 extract in respect of that portion<br \/>\nof the suit land.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\"> 5. The Tahsildar on the basis of the said<br \/>\napplication conducted an enquiry and by his order<br \/>\ndated 9th September 1981 rejected the application<br \/>\nfiled by the opponent. Being aggrieved and<br \/>\ndissatisfied with the order dated 9th September 1981<br \/>\npassed by the Tahsildar rejecting the application,<br \/>\nthe opponent preferred an appeal before the<br \/>\nSub-Divisional Officer, Udgir being Appeal<br \/>\nNo.1981\/ROR\/128 (Ahmedpur MENo.666). This appeal<br \/>\ncame to be allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,<br \/>\nUdgir by his judgment and order dated 15.7.1985 and<br \/>\nordered that, name of the opponent in the record of<br \/>\nrights as owner of land Gat No.86\/1\/3 to the extent<br \/>\nof l hectare and 54 Ares to be recorded.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\"> 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and<br \/>\norder passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Udgir, the<br \/>\nrevision petitioners preferred appeal before the<br \/>\nCollector U\/s 247 of the Code. When the appeal filed<br \/>\nby Bandappa was pending before the Collector, he died<br \/>\nand his heirs and legal representatives were brought<br \/>\non record and they continued the litigation<br \/>\nthereafter. The Additional Collector, Latur by his<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 28.6.1988 dismissed the<br \/>\nappeal and confirmed the order passed by the<br \/>\nSub-Divisional Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\"> 7. On dismissal of appeal by the Additional<br \/>\nCollector, heirs of Bandappa, preferred revision<br \/>\nApplication being Case No.88\/Rev.\/R-59 U\/s 257 of the<br \/>\nCode and the Addl. Commissioner dismissed the<br \/>\nrevision application and confirmed the order of the<br \/>\nAddl. Collector, Latur.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\"> 8. On dismissal of the Revision by the<br \/>\nAddl. Commissioner, heirs of Bandappa i.e. Revision<br \/>\nPetitioner preferred Second Revision before the<br \/>\nGovernment of Maharashtra invoking the revisional<br \/>\njurisdiction U\/s 257. Admittedly, the said revision<br \/>\napplication is heard and decided by the Officer on<br \/>\nSpecial Duty and Secretary (Appeals and Revision),<br \/>\nRevenue and Forest Department, Government of<br \/>\nMaharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\"> 9. Curiously enough the IInd Revisional<br \/>\nauthority upset all the three judgments delivered by<br \/>\nthe Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector and<br \/>\nthe Additional Commissioner, and, by a cryptic order<br \/>\nallowed the revision application by his judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 2lst October 1993. This order is subject<br \/>\nmatter of this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\"> 10. Shri R.D. Deshpande, learned advocate<br \/>\nappearing for the petitioner has raised following<br \/>\ncontentions :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\"> (i) Second revision U\/s 257 is not at all<br \/>\nmaintainable and the Officer on Special Duty has<br \/>\nexceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the Second<br \/>\nRevision.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\"> (ii) Even if it is held that 2nd Revision<br \/>\napplication is tenable the 2nd Revisional Authority<br \/>\nexceeded jurisdiction and interfered with the<br \/>\nfindings of three authorities, that too without<br \/>\nassigning any reasons for his decision. Passing of<br \/>\ncryptic order shows non-applicatoin of mind by the<br \/>\nSecond Revisional authority.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\"> (iii) The Officer on Special Duty has no<br \/>\njurisdiction to entertain Second Revision U\/s 257 of<br \/>\nthe Code when the revisional petitioners have already<br \/>\nexhausted remedy by filing a revision U\/s 257 which<br \/>\nwas heard and decided by the Additional Commissioner,<br \/>\nwho has confirmed the order passed by the<br \/>\nSub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\"> iv) Even if it is held that Second Revision is<br \/>\ncompetent before the State Government, but as the<br \/>\nsame is heard by the Officer on Special Duty who has<br \/>\nno jurisdiction to hear and decide the revision U\/s<br \/>\n257 r\/w the Rules of Business framed under <a href=\"\/doc\/358020\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article<br \/>\n166<\/a> of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\"> v) Shri Deshpande submitted that U\/s 257<br \/>\nparty can invoke jurisdiction at one stage and the<br \/>\nsecond revision at the instance of the said party is<br \/>\nnot maintainable and the entertainment of such<br \/>\nrevision therefore, amounts to an error apparent on<br \/>\nthe face of record and the authority who has<br \/>\nexercised it lacks the inherent jurisdiction to<br \/>\nentertain the Second Revision. To substantiate his<br \/>\ncontention the learned advocate Shri Deshpande,<br \/>\nplaced reliance on the unreported judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt by the learned Single Judge (R.M. Lodha, J.) in<br \/>\nW.P.No.4l68\/98 decided on 18.2.1999 (A.I.R. 1963 Supreme Court 1503, and 2002 Vol.I Maharashtra Law Journal 854).<br \/>\n.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\"> 11. Per Contra, Shri B.N. Patil, learned<br \/>\nadvocate has contended that considering the true<br \/>\nimport of Section 257, there is no restriction or<br \/>\nprohibiting the State Government to entertain Second<br \/>\nRevision. Shri Patil, contended that the Additional<br \/>\nCommissioner who has decided the first revision is a<br \/>\ndelegatee exercising delegated powers of the<br \/>\nGovernment. The Revisional power has been exercised<br \/>\nby the Additional Commissioner in his jurisdiction<br \/>\nU\/s 257 which also permits the State Government to<br \/>\nexercise the revisional power independently,<br \/>\nirrespective of the fact that a revision entertained<br \/>\nand decided by the Commissioner U\/s 257 of the Code<br \/>\nby the same party. Shri Patil, in other words<br \/>\ncontended that it is permissible for the State<br \/>\nGovernment to exercise revisional power as the<br \/>\nstatute does not pohibit or limits number of the<br \/>\nrevisions. To substantiate these contentions Shri<br \/>\nPatil, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court<br \/>\nreported in 1997 Vol.2 Maharashtra Law Journal 252.<br \/>\nShri Patil, further contended that the question of<br \/>\nmaintainability of the revision before the O.S.D.<br \/>\nwas not at all raised by the opponent when the<br \/>\nrevision was being heard and now it will be<br \/>\nimpermissible for him to make grievance before this<br \/>\nCourt and this Court may not ponder on that question<br \/>\nand declare that order as invalid. Shri Patil,<br \/>\nrelied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2000<br \/>\nMaharashtra Law Journal 115 and submitted that the<br \/>\nSecond Revision was competent and as the Revisional<br \/>\nauthority has considered all the aspect and then<br \/>\ninterfered in the order passed by the authorities<br \/>\nbelow. Shri Patil, in alternate contended that now<br \/>\nthe parties have approached the Civil Court for<br \/>\ngetting their rights decided therefore, this Court<br \/>\nmay not entertain this writ petition and leave the<br \/>\nparties to abide by the outcome of the Civil Suit<br \/>\nwhich is pending before the competent Civil Court.<br \/>\nShri Patil, contended that these proceedings are in<br \/>\nrespect of mutation of name in Revenue Register which<br \/>\ndo not confer any title or creates or distinguish any<br \/>\nright in respect of the property in question and<br \/>\nultimately the parties have to go to Civil Court to<br \/>\nestablish their rights.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\"> 12. Now I will consider the rival contentions<br \/>\nin detail. Taking last contention of Mr. Patil, first<br \/>\nregarding nature of the proceedings of the mutation<br \/>\nentries, there cannot be any quarrel as the question<br \/>\nis already settled by the judgment of the Apex Court<br \/>\nreported in 1996 Vol.I Mh. L.J. 209. I need not<br \/>\npoinder much on the said issue. It is always open<br \/>\nfor the parties to get their rights decided before<br \/>\ncompetent Civil Court. I would have considered this<br \/>\naspect of the matter if the Second Revisional<br \/>\nauthority would have directed the parties to abide by<br \/>\nthe orders of the Civil Court but having not done so<br \/>\nbut Second Revisional authority interfered in the<br \/>\nfinding recorded by the three authorities below I<br \/>\nhave to decide this petition as it is on merit. and<br \/>\nto consider whether the finding recorded by Second<br \/>\nRevisional authority was proper and whether the 2nd<br \/>\nrevisional authority has jurisdiction to interfere in<br \/>\nthe finding of fact recorded by two appellate<br \/>\nauthorities and confirmed by the Divisional authority<br \/>\nin lst revision. In view of this, it will not be<br \/>\nproper to dismiss this writ petition on the ground<br \/>\nthat the parties have already approached Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\"> 13. In order to appreciate the above said<br \/>\ncontentions, it will be necessary to refer to some<br \/>\nprovisions contained in the Code. The Land Revenue<br \/>\nCode enacted to prove land revenue in the State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra. Chapter 10 deals with land records and<br \/>\nChapter XIII deals with Appeal, Revision and Review.<br \/>\nSection 148 and Section 149 of the Code deals with<br \/>\nrecord of rights. As per Section 148 the record of<br \/>\nrights to be maintained in every village and which<br \/>\nwill include names of all persons (other than the<br \/>\ntenants) who are holders, occupation owners or<br \/>\nmortgages of the land as lessees, rent or revenue<br \/>\npayable etc. <\/p>\n<p> It is not disputed in the present case<br \/>\nthat on death of Babu Teli the parties (three sons of<br \/>\nBabu Teli) set up a theory of partition and applied<br \/>\nfor the mutation entries, as per the requirement of<br \/>\nSection 148, way back in the year 1964. In those<br \/>\nproceedings it revealed by the Tahsildar that the<br \/>\npartition and\/or division as alleged by the parties<br \/>\nbeing unequal he ordered to correct the record vide<br \/>\nmutation entry No.299 by providing 3 equal shares to<br \/>\nthe parties. It is not disputed that the said entire<br \/>\nwas corrected, and entered in record of rights and<br \/>\nfrom that date till 1979 the position did not change.<br \/>\nSection 247 provides for an appeal and the<br \/>\nappellate authorities which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\"> &#8220;247.Appeal and appellate<br \/>\nauthorities :- (1) In the absence of any<br \/>\nexpress provisions of this Code, or of any law<br \/>\nfor the time being in force to the contrary,<br \/>\nan appeal shall lie from any decisoin or<br \/>\norder passed by a revenue or survey officer<br \/>\nspecified in column l of the Schedule E<br \/>\nunder this Code or any other law for the time<br \/>\nbeing in force to the officer specified in<br \/>\ncolumn 2 of that Schedule whether or not<br \/>\nsuch decision of order of the officer<br \/>\nspecified in column l of the said Schedule:<br \/>\nProvided that, in no case the number of<br \/>\nappeals shall exceed two.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\"> (2)When on account of promotion or change<br \/>\nof designation, an appeal against any<br \/>\ndecision or order lies under this section to<br \/>\nthe same officer who has passed the decision<br \/>\nor order appealed against, the appeal should<br \/>\nlie to such other officer competent to decide<br \/>\nthe appeal to whom it may be transferred<br \/>\nunder the provisions of this Code.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\"> Section 248 provides for an appeal to<br \/>\nthe State Government in some cases referred for in<br \/>\nthat Section. Section 249 provides for an appeal<br \/>\nagainst an order of revision. Section 250 provides<br \/>\nfor limitation for filing an appeal. Section 251<br \/>\npermits the appellate authority to entertain the<br \/>\nappeal after the period of limitation. Under Section<br \/>\n252 some orders are not made appealable. Section 253<br \/>\nmakes a provision to entertain the appeal when the<br \/>\nlast day for filing the appeal is Sunday or Holiday.<br \/>\nSection 255 provides the power of appellate<br \/>\nauthority. By virtue of Section 256 the appellate<br \/>\nauthority can stay the order challenged in the<br \/>\nappeal. Under section 257 a revision can be filed by<br \/>\nthe aggrieved party. In this petition the question<br \/>\narose about the scope of revisional jurisdiction, it<br \/>\nwill be appropriate to reproduce Section 257 which<br \/>\nreads thus :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\"> &#8220;257. (1) The State Government and any<br \/>\nrevenue or survey officer, nor inferior in<br \/>\nrank to an Assistant or Deputy Collector or<br \/>\na Superintendent of Land Records, in their<br \/>\nrespective departments, may call for and<br \/>\nexamine the record of any inquiry or the<br \/>\nproceedings of any subordinate revenue or<br \/>\nsurvey officer, for the purpose of<br \/>\nsatisfying itself or himself, as the case<br \/>\nmay be, as to the legality or propriety of<br \/>\nany decision or order passed, and as to the<br \/>\nregularity of the proceedings of such<br \/>\nofficer.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\"> (2) A Tahsildar, a Naib Tahsildar, and a<br \/>\nDistrict Inspector of Land Records may in<br \/>\nthe same manner call for an examine the<br \/>\nproceedings of any officer subordinate to<br \/>\nthem in any matter in which neither a formal<br \/>\nnor a summary inquiry has been held.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\"> (3) If in any case, it shall appear to the<br \/>\nState Government, or to any officer referred<br \/>\nto in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)<br \/>\nthat any decision or order or proceedings so<br \/>\ncalled for should be modified, annulled or<br \/>\nreversed, it or he may pass such order<br \/>\nthereon as it or he deems fit:&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\"> It is the case of the opponent that though he was in<br \/>\npossession of l hectare and 54 Ares the name of<br \/>\nBandappa was recorded as an occupant. This<br \/>\napplication was enquired into as per Section 149. On<br \/>\nenquiry the Tahsildar found that :<br \/>\n  &#8220;The record further shows that the pot Hissa<br \/>\nof the land S.No.86\/1\/C measuring 10\/13<br \/>\ngunthas was in the name of Sambappa and<br \/>\nthereafter it was sold to Ramchandra<br \/>\nVithalrao and others. The real relief<br \/>\nclaimed by the applicant. The correction of<br \/>\nthe entries in the pot Hissa Survey record.<br \/>\nThis court is not competent to correct the<br \/>\nentries of the record preferred by the pot<br \/>\nHissa Survey Officer. The proper remedy to<br \/>\nthe parties in the present matter is to get<br \/>\nthe Pot hissa remeasured and correct the<br \/>\nrecord by the said authority.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_27\"> With these observation the Tahsildar held that he being<br \/>\nincompetent to give any relief and accordingly, the<br \/>\napplication came to be rejected. The rejection by the<br \/>\nTahsildar was challenged by filing appeal U\/s 247 of the<br \/>\nCode.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_28\"> Dt.18.12.2002  <\/p>\n<p id=\"p_29\"> 14. The opponent then approached the<br \/>\nSub-Divisional Officer Udgir by filing appeal. The<br \/>\nlearned Deputy Collector, heard the parties at<br \/>\nlength, considered the evidence on record and found<br \/>\nthat the entries which are made in the revenue record<br \/>\nare contrary to the factual position. Considering<br \/>\nthis aspect the learned S.D.O. allowed these appears<br \/>\nand set aside the order dated 9.9.1981. The learned<br \/>\nDeputy Collector i.e. S.D.O. while allowing the<br \/>\nappeal recorded the following finding :<br \/>\n  &#8220;The facts discussed above and the<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence on record left to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the present entries in the<br \/>\nrevenue record are contrary to the factual<br \/>\nposition. It is clear that the appellant is<br \/>\nowner in possession of 15 acres 17 gunthas<br \/>\nof land. No land is left with the<br \/>\nrespondent so far. No 86. The disputed<br \/>\nportion of 3 Acres 32 gunthas is held and<br \/>\npossessed by the appellant. The revenue<br \/>\nrecord needs to be corrected accordingly.<br \/>\nThe Lower Court has erred in holding that<br \/>\nthe appellant claims the relief to correct<br \/>\nthe Pot Hissa record. In fact, the relief<br \/>\nclaimed by the appellant is correction of<br \/>\nrecord of rights for which the lower court<br \/>\nwas quite competent.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_30\"> 15. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the<br \/>\nS.D.O. Udgir, on 15.7.1985 the Revisional<br \/>\npetitioners preferred Second Appeal U\/s 247 of the<br \/>\nCode before the Additional Collector, Latur. The<br \/>\nAddl. Collector on considering the evidence produced<br \/>\nbefore the parties held that the evidence which is<br \/>\nproduced on record goes in favour of the opponent.<br \/>\nThis observation has been made by the Addl. Collector<br \/>\non scrutiny of the available documents produced by<br \/>\nthe parties. With these observations the appeal came<br \/>\nto be dismissed and the order passed by the S.D.O.<br \/>\ncame to be confirmed. Accordingly, the<br \/>\nAddl. Collector, Latur by his judgment and order dated<br \/>\n28.6.1988 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the<br \/>\norder passed by the S.D.O. Udgir.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_31\"> 16. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and<br \/>\norder dated l5.7.1985 passed by the S.D.O. Udgir and<br \/>\norder dated 28.6.1988 passed by the Addl. Collector,<br \/>\nLatur revision petitioners preferred revision before<br \/>\nthe Addl. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division,<br \/>\nAurangabad US 257 of the Code. The learned<br \/>\nAdditional Commissioner on proper analysis of the<br \/>\nevidence on record found that the order of the<br \/>\nAddl. Collector the first appellate Court being valid<br \/>\nand correct, dismissed the revision application<br \/>\nconfirming the orders which were challenged before<br \/>\nthe Additional Commissioner Aurangabad Division,<br \/>\nAurangabad.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_32\"> 17. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 20.2.1991 by the Revisional authority,<br \/>\nthe revision petitioners approached the State<br \/>\nGovernment invoking the jurisdiction U\/s 257 by<br \/>\nfiling Second revision. The second revision was<br \/>\nheard by the Officer on Special Duty and he allowed<br \/>\nthe revision by the order dated 20th October 1991.<br \/>\nWhile reversing the order passed by the three<br \/>\nauthorities below, he found fault with the<br \/>\nAddl. Collector and Addl. Commissioner by observing<br \/>\nthat they have unnecessarily based their judgments on<br \/>\nthe affidavit filed by the parties. He also recorded<br \/>\na finding that the partition deed is not a partition<br \/>\ndeed at all. With these observations he allowed the<br \/>\nrevision application by recording the following<br \/>\nfinding :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_33\">  &#8220;I have gone through the record of the case<br \/>\nand find that the order passed by the<br \/>\nAddl. Collector land Additional Commissioner<br \/>\nare very cryptic. They have unnecessarily<br \/>\nbased their judgment on this affidavit of<br \/>\nthe revision applicants. The partition deed<br \/>\nis not a partition deed at all. It does not<br \/>\nstate the shares of each brother. Secondly,<br \/>\nthis so called partition on fertility basis<br \/>\nhas already been rejected by tahsildar in<br \/>\n1964, and tahsildars order becomes final as<br \/>\nit had not been challenged by other party.<br \/>\nThe sub Divisional Officer has gone beyond<br \/>\nthis jurisdiction to delete the name of the<br \/>\napplicant from Kabjedar column and to record<br \/>\nthe name of the present opponent in his<br \/>\nplace. The overwhelming documentary<br \/>\nevidence is in favour of revision<br \/>\napplicants. The order passed by the lower<br \/>\nauthorities are not based on sound<br \/>\njudgment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_34\"> 18. As I disposed of the last submission of<br \/>\nlearned counsel Shri Patil, now it will be<br \/>\nappropriate for me to consider the submissions of the<br \/>\nlearned advocate Shri R.D. Deshpande, he made a<br \/>\ngrievance that the second revisional authority had<br \/>\ninterfered in the finding of fact recorded by three<br \/>\nauthorities by considering the evidence on record.<br \/>\nHe submitted that in a second revision the revisional<br \/>\nauthority i.e. State Government can not reappreciate<br \/>\nthe evidence and interfere in the finding so<br \/>\nrecorded. Interfering in the finding of fact by<br \/>\nsecond revisional Court itself is a ground to<br \/>\ninterfere with in this writ petition. It is true<br \/>\nthat Sub-Divisional Officer, Addl. Collector and the<br \/>\nAddl. Commissioner have concurrently recorded a<br \/>\nfinding in favour of the present petitioner by<br \/>\nobserving that the revenue record is not in<br \/>\nconsonance with the factual aspect and they have<br \/>\ndirected to correct the revenue entries. Therefore,<br \/>\nin my judgment the second revisional authority as<br \/>\nsuch exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the<br \/>\nsaid application and interfering with the finding of<br \/>\nfact. By close scrutiny of Section 257 it is clear<br \/>\nthat a revisional authority has to consider the<br \/>\nlegality propriety of decision or order impugned.<br \/>\nFrom the order of Officer on Special Duty it is clear<br \/>\nthat there is no satisfaction recorded by the O.S.D.<br \/>\nabout legality or propriety of the order. The tenor<br \/>\nof the order shows that the O.S.D. has treated the<br \/>\nproceedings before him as an appeal, which is not the<br \/>\nscope of Section 257. On this aspect the grievance<br \/>\nof the learned advocate Shri Deshpande, is required<br \/>\nto be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_35\"> 19. Coming to the much debated question raised<br \/>\nby both the learned advocates regarding tenability of<br \/>\nthe second revision U\/s 257 and the question whether<br \/>\nthe Officer on Special Duty can decide revision<br \/>\napplication U\/s 257. So far as the hearing of the<br \/>\nrevision filed before the State Government by the<br \/>\nOfficer on Special Duty is concerned, in my judgment<br \/>\nthe question is concluded by the judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt in Vinaykumar Kachrulal Abad Vs. Honourable<br \/>\nMinister, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya,<br \/>\nMumbai reported in 2002 (1) Maharashtra Law Journal\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_36\">854). The question which is raised in this petition<br \/>\nhas squarely fell for consideration before this Court<br \/>\nwhile considering the said issue. The learned single<br \/>\nJudge (Khandeparkar, J.) posed the following question<br \/>\nfor his consideration :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_37\">  &#8220;Who is the competent authority under<br \/>\nsection 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966<br \/>\nto hear and decide the revision application when the<br \/>\nsame is filed before the State Government.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_38\"> The case of Vinaykumar can be summarised<br \/>\nas follows :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_39\"> &#8220;4. Some times in the year, 1996 the<br \/>\npetitioner claiming to be owner and<br \/>\npossessor of part of the property bearing<br \/>\nSurvey No.555, situated at Jalna obtained<br \/>\norder for conversion of land to Non<br \/>\nAgriculture use., In fact, the order to that<br \/>\neffect was passed by the Collector, Jalna on<br \/>\n1.7.1996. The said order of conversion of<br \/>\nland for Non Agriculture use was sought to<br \/>\nbe challenged by predecessors of the<br \/>\nrespondents No.3 to 15 by filing an<br \/>\napplication before the Collector, Jalna but<br \/>\nthe same was dismissed by the Collector on<br \/>\n10th April, 2000. Thereafter, on 11th<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">April, 2000, the respondent Nos.2 to 15<\/span><br \/>\nfiled an application for cancellation of the<br \/>\npermission granted to the petitioner for<br \/>\nconversion of the land for Non Agriculture<br \/>\npurposes to the extent of the part of the<br \/>\nland claiming the same to be belonging to<br \/>\nthe said respondents. The Collector allowed<br \/>\nthe said application by order dated 14th<br \/>\nSeptember, 2000. The same was sought to be<br \/>\nchallenged by the petitioner by filing writ<br \/>\npetition No.4975\/2000, which was allowed by<br \/>\nthis Court and the order dated 14th<br \/>\nSeptember, 2000 was quashed and set aside<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">while permitting the respondents No.2 to 15<\/span><br \/>\nto withdraw the proceedings before the<br \/>\nCollector, making it clear that the<br \/>\nwithdrawal would not affect the legal rights<br \/>\nof the respondent No.2 herein in the<br \/>\nproceedings pending in the Civil Court, in<br \/>\nCivil Suit No.168\/98 as well as before the<br \/>\nrevenue authorities and the withdrawal was<br \/>\npermitted without prejudice to the rights<br \/>\nand contention of the respective parties.<br \/>\nThe respondents No.2 to 15 thereafter, on<br \/>\n17th January, 2001 filed appeal before the<br \/>\nAdditional Commissioner &#8211; respondent No.17<br \/>\nherein challenging the permission granted<br \/>\nfor the Non Agriculture use of the land by<br \/>\nthe petitioner alongwith the application for<br \/>\ncondonation of delay in filing the appeal.<br \/>\nThe application for condonation of delay was<br \/>\nobjected to by the petitioner. However, the<br \/>\nrespondent No.17 by his order dated<br \/>\n13.3.2001 condoned the delay of four and<br \/>\nhalf years in filing the appeal. Being<br \/>\naggrieved, the petitioner filed the revision<br \/>\napplication under Section 257 of the Code.<br \/>\nThe same came to be heard by the Minister of<br \/>\nState (Revenue and Forest Department) on<br \/>\n23rd March, 2001 and on the very day, the<br \/>\norder admitting the revision application and<br \/>\ngranting order of status quo for fifteen<br \/>\ndays came to be passed. The matter was<br \/>\nfixed for hearing on 11th April, 2001.<br \/>\nMeanwhile, on 29.3.2001, the Desk Officer in<br \/>\nthe Revenue and Forest Department, placed<br \/>\nthe matter before the Cabinet Minister<br \/>\n(Revenue) with a note inviting the order of<br \/>\nthe Cabinet Minister on the point as to the<br \/>\nprocedure to be followed in the matter,<br \/>\nparticularly, in relation to the hearing of<br \/>\nthe matter, i.e. whether it should be heard<br \/>\nby the Cabinet Minister or by the Minister<br \/>\nof State and in relation to continuation or<br \/>\ndiscontinuation of order of status quo. The<br \/>\nCabinet Minister thereupon, on 13th April<br \/>\n2001, vacated the order of status quo passed<br \/>\nby the Minister of State and further<br \/>\nobserved that till the decision of the<br \/>\nAdditional Commissioner, the concerned<br \/>\nauthorities should take precaution against<br \/>\nthe alienation or sale of the property in<br \/>\nquestion. The said order was also<br \/>\ncommunicated to the petitioner by letter<br \/>\ndated 19th April, 2001 by the Desk Officer<br \/>\nor Revenue and Forest Department.<br \/>\nConsequent thereto, the matter before the<br \/>\nappellate authority was taken up by the<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner, Aurangabad for hearing<br \/>\non 24th April, 2001 but, was adjourned at<br \/>\nthe request of the petitioner; however,<br \/>\nsimultaneously, the order to maintain status<br \/>\nquo was granted. The further hearing was<br \/>\nfixed in the matter on 25th June, 2001.<br \/>\nMeanwhile, the present petition came to be<br \/>\nfiled on 24th April, 2001. Since the order<br \/>\nof 24th April, 2001 before the lower<br \/>\nAppellate Authority was passed subsequent to<br \/>\nthe filing of the petition, the same was<br \/>\nsought to be brought to the notice of this<br \/>\nCourt by filing Civil Application  No. 3750 of<br \/>\n2001.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_40\"> 5.The first ground of challenge in the<br \/>\nmatter relates to the jurisdiction of the<br \/>\nCabinet Minister to hear and decide the<br \/>\nrevision application under section 257 of<br \/>\nthe Code. According to the petitioner, the<br \/>\njurisdiction to hear and decide the revision<br \/>\napplication under Section 257 of the Code<br \/>\nvests in the Minister of State and not in<br \/>\nthe Cabinet Minister and, therefore, the<br \/>\norder the dated 13th April, 2001 passed by<br \/>\nthe Cabinet Minister is ab initio bad in law<br \/>\nand therefore, the said order and the<br \/>\ncommunication dated 19th April, 2001 by the<br \/>\nDesk Officer are to be quashed and set<br \/>\naside. Attention is drawn in that regard to<br \/>\nthe various provisions of the Maharashtra<br \/>\nGovernment Rules of Business, and<br \/>\nInstructions issued thereunder. Reliance is<br \/>\nalso placed in the decision of the Division<br \/>\nBench of this Court in the matter of<br \/>\nGaneshrao Kishanrao Deshmukh Vs.<br \/>\nDevisingh Venkatasingh and others . On<br \/>\nthe other hand, it is sought to be contended<br \/>\non behalf of the respondent  No. l as well as<br \/>\nthe other respondents that the Rules of<br \/>\nBusiness duly empower the Cabinet Minister<br \/>\nwho is the Minister in-charge, of the<br \/>\ndepartment concerned, to hear and decide the<br \/>\nrevision application filed under the said<br \/>\nCode and, therefore, no fault can be found<br \/>\nwith the impugned order or communication<br \/>\nthereof.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_41\"> On the above said facts this Court has considered the<br \/>\nrules of business framed under <a href=\"\/doc\/358020\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 166<\/a> of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India and considering the rules of<br \/>\nbusiness this Court came to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nOfficer on Special Duty has no jurisdiction to hear<br \/>\nand decide the appeal. This Court observed thus :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_42\"> &#8220;6.Section 257 of the Code empowers the<br \/>\nState Government and certain other revenue<br \/>\nofficers to call for and examine the records<br \/>\nand proceedings before the subordinate<br \/>\nofficers and to pass appropriate order in<br \/>\nsuch matters. In exercise of powers<br \/>\nconferred by clauses (2) and (3) of <a href=\"\/doc\/358020\/\" id=\"a_2\">Article<br \/>\n166<\/a> of the Constitution of India, the<br \/>\nGovernment of Maharashtra has framed the<br \/>\nMaharashtra Government Rules of Business by<br \/>\norder dated 26th June, 1975. Rule 15<br \/>\nthereof provides that those rules may to<br \/>\nsuch extent as necessary be supplemented by<br \/>\ninstructions to be issued by the Governor on<br \/>\nthe advice of the Chief Minister.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_43\">Accordingly, the necessary instructions were<br \/>\nissued by order dated 7th May, 1964. In<br \/>\nterms of those instructions under clause<br \/>\nl(v), &#8220;Minister-in-charge&#8221; means the<br \/>\nMinister appointed by the Governor to be in<br \/>\ncharge of the department of Government to<br \/>\nwhich a case belongs. Clause 4 therein<br \/>\nprovides that except as otherwise provided<br \/>\nin those instructions, cases shall<br \/>\nordinarily be disposed of by, or under the<br \/>\nauthority, of the Minister-in-charge, who<br \/>\nmay by means of standing orders give such<br \/>\ndirection as he thinks fit for the disposal<br \/>\nof cases in the Department. Further, the<br \/>\nstanding orders issued on 10th January, 2000<br \/>\nin accordance with the Rule 15 of the<br \/>\nBusiness Rules, read with Clause 4 of the<br \/>\nInstructions dated 7th May, 1964, provide<br \/>\nfor distribution of work between the Cabinet<br \/>\nMinister and Minister of State.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_44\">Accordingly, the matters listed in Schedule<br \/>\nI are required to be dealt with exclusively<br \/>\nby the Cabinet Minister. The matters<br \/>\nenlisted in Schedule III are in Schedule II<br \/>\nare to be disposed of by the Cabinet<br \/>\nMinister through the Minister of State.<br \/>\nItem  No. 12 of the Schedule III is a<br \/>\nresiduary clause, which provides for all the<br \/>\nmatters excluding the appeals and revisions<br \/>\nwhich are specifically reserved by the<br \/>\nCabinet Minister for disposal by himself and<br \/>\nall other matters which are specifically<br \/>\nallotted to the Secretary, Joint Secretary<br \/>\nor an Officer on Special Duty for their<br \/>\ndisposal and in relation to the matters<br \/>\nconcerning revenue and forest department.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_45\"> 7. On perusal of the Rules of Business<br \/>\nframed on 26th June, 1975, the instructions<br \/>\nissued thereunder on 7th May, 1964 and the<br \/>\nStanding Order dated 10th January, 2000, it<br \/>\nis apparent that the revision applications<br \/>\nfiled under section 257 of the Code, unless<br \/>\nthey are specifically reserved for being<br \/>\nhearing by the Cabinet Minister, or they are<br \/>\nbeing allotted to be heard by the Secretary,<br \/>\nJoint Secretary or Officer on Special Duty<br \/>\nin accordance with Clause 12 of the Schedule<br \/>\nIII of the Standing Order dated 10th<br \/>\nJanuary,2000, are required to be heard and<br \/>\ndecided by the Minister of State. In this<br \/>\nconnection, it was sought to be contended by<br \/>\nthe learned A.G.P. that by letter dated<br \/>\n13th July, 2001, it was clarified that the<br \/>\npetitioner in the case in hand, was required<br \/>\nto forward the revision application before<br \/>\nthe Cabinet Minister and having not done so,<br \/>\nnothing prevented the Cabinet Minister from<br \/>\ncalling the file for his consideration and<br \/>\npassing the impugned order. As already<br \/>\nstated above, the Rules of Business read<br \/>\nwith Instructions and the Standing Order<br \/>\nreferred to above, nowhere provide that the<br \/>\nrevision applications filed under the Code<br \/>\nare invariably to be heard by the Cabinet<br \/>\nMinister.(underline is mine) The respondents<br \/>\nhave not been able to point out any rule<br \/>\nhaving been framed making it obligatory for<br \/>\nthe revision applicants to present the<br \/>\nrevision application before the Cabinet<br \/>\nMinister alone, when such revision<br \/>\napplications are addressed to the State<br \/>\nGovernment. On the contrary, Clause 12 of<br \/>\nthe Schedule III of the Standing order<br \/>\nspecifically requires an order by the<br \/>\nCabinet Minister to hear the revision<br \/>\napplication either by himself or an<br \/>\nallotment of the matter for hearing by the<br \/>\nSecretary, Joint Secretary or an Officer on<br \/>\nSpecial Duty. No such specific order of the<br \/>\nCabinet Minister is required for the purpose<br \/>\nof hearing of the matter by the Minister of<br \/>\nState as the Clause 12 of Schedule III<br \/>\nitself empowers the Minister of State to<br \/>\nhear all such matters except those are<br \/>\nexcluded by the specific order by the<br \/>\nCabinet Minister. There is no dispute that<br \/>\nthe matter in question was not allotted for<br \/>\nbeing heard either by the Secretary or the<br \/>\nJoint Secretary or Officer on Special Duty.<br \/>\nThe records nowhere discloses any order by<br \/>\nthe Cabinet Minister reserving the matter in<br \/>\nquestion to be heard by himself. Besides,<br \/>\nthe letter dated 13th July, 2001 by the Desk<br \/>\nOfficer addressed to the Government<br \/>\nAdvocate, copy of which is placed on record,<br \/>\nnowhere refers to any order by the cabinet<br \/>\nMinister for reserving the matter for<br \/>\nhearing by himself. Such an order is<br \/>\nnecessarily to be by the Cabinet Minister<br \/>\nand mere explanation in that regard by the<br \/>\nDesk Officer can be of no assistance.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_46\"> At this juncture it will also be appropriate to refer<br \/>\nto the Full Bench decision of this Court in case of<br \/>\nShaikh Mohammed Fatemohamed and etc. Vs. Raisuddin<br \/>\nAzimuddin Katil and others . The Full Bench of this Court was dealing<br \/>\nwith the situation where the appeal which was filed<br \/>\nU\/s 2-A of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash<br \/>\nGrants Act was required to be heard by the State<br \/>\nGovernment meaning thereby the Minister incharge but<br \/>\nthe said appeal was heard by the Officer on Special<br \/>\nDuty. The Full Bench after considering the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 2-A of the Hyderabad Abolition<br \/>\nof Inams and Cash Grants Act and also rules of<br \/>\nbusiness framed under <a href=\"\/doc\/358020\/\" id=\"a_3\">Article 166<\/a> held thus :<br \/>\n  &#8220;That the quasi judicial functions would<br \/>\nbe out of the purview of <a href=\"\/doc\/358020\/\" id=\"a_4\">Art.166<\/a> much less that would<br \/>\nnot be covered by the Rules of business under Rule\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_47\">15.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_48\"> By observing this the Full Bench approved<br \/>\nthe view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in<br \/>\nthe case of Ganeshrao Kishanrao Deshmukh Vs.<br \/>\nDevisingh Venkata Singh . Considering the above judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt dealing with the subject I am of the view that<br \/>\nthe Officer on Special Duty has no jurisdiction to<br \/>\nhear and decide the revision filed U\/s 257 of the<br \/>\nCode. On the judgments by this Court (supra) it will<br \/>\nhave to be declared that the judgment delivered by<br \/>\nthe Officer on Special Duty is thus without<br \/>\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_49\"> 20. Turning now to the question whether Second<br \/>\nRevision is maintainable U\/s 257 of the Code. It is<br \/>\nnot disputed before me that the proceedings initiated<br \/>\non an application filed by the petitioner complaining<br \/>\nabout the entries in the revenue record. Initially<br \/>\nTahsildar conducted enquiry and rejected the<br \/>\napplication, that rejection gave rise to the<br \/>\nrespondents to invoke the jurisdiction of the<br \/>\nauthorities by filing appeal as provided U\/s 247.<br \/>\nAccordingly, First Appeal was filed before the S.D.O.<br \/>\nUdgir. Aggrieved by the decision of the S.D.O.<br \/>\nSecond Appeal came to be filed before the Additional<br \/>\nCollector, Latur. Section 247 provides for two<br \/>\nappeals. This remedy is fully exhausted by the<br \/>\nRevision Petitioner. After decision of<br \/>\nAddl. Collector, Latur the revision petitioners<br \/>\ninvolved the jurisdiction of the Commissioner by<br \/>\nfiling a revision application U\/s 257. The<br \/>\nAdditional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division,<br \/>\nAurangabad disposed of the revision and then second<br \/>\nrevision was filed under the same provision. I have<br \/>\nto find out from the Code whether it is permissible<br \/>\nfor a party to file two revisions or successive<br \/>\nrevisions as contended by Shri Patil, the learned<br \/>\nadvocate for the respondent. As a matter of fact, in<br \/>\nmy judgment the issue stands concluded in view of the<br \/>\nunreported judgment of the learned Single Judge of<br \/>\nthis Court in W.P. No. 4168\/98. The unreported<br \/>\njudgment relied on by Shri Deshpande, rendered by the<br \/>\nSingle Judge on 18.2.1999 squarely answers the<br \/>\ncontention raised by Shri Patil. The learned Single<br \/>\nJudge on considering the provisions of Section 257<br \/>\nheld that there is no provision for second revision<br \/>\nU\/s 257 of the Code. The said unreported judgment<br \/>\nagain came for consideration before another learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge in case of Ramesh T. Gopalani Vs. Janata<br \/>\nSahakari Bank Ltd., Kalyan and another reported in<br \/>\n2000 (3) Maharashtra Law Journal 115. The learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge (J.A. Patil, J.) was considering a<br \/>\nquestion of second revision filed before the<br \/>\nGovernment of Maharashtra U\/s 154 of the Maharashtra<br \/>\nCooperative Societies Act. While considering the<br \/>\nissue the judgment rendered by Lodha, J. (supra) was<br \/>\nconsidered. In case of Ramesh the judgment in<br \/>\nW.P. No. 2084\/1999 delivered by Gokhale, J. was also<br \/>\nconsidered. On considering these two judgments and<br \/>\nconsidering the provisions of Section 154 of the<br \/>\nMaharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge held that no second revision lies U\/s\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_50\">154. These judgments are relied on by Shri Patil,<br \/>\nregarding his contention that the question of<br \/>\njurisdiction was not raised before the Officer on<br \/>\nSpecial Duty when the second revision was heard. He<br \/>\nrelied on the observation made by the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge in Rameshs case in para 6 of the report. I<br \/>\nhave given my anxious consideration to the<br \/>\nobservation made in para 6. The said observations<br \/>\nare not useful or helpful to substantiate the<br \/>\ncontention of Shri Patil, that the point regarding<br \/>\nmaintainability of Second Revision was not raised<br \/>\nbefore the Officer on Special Duty. It is nodoubt<br \/>\ntrue that the learned Single Judge has relied on a<br \/>\njudgment of the Apex Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma<br \/>\nVs. Kallyani Sulochana and others . On perusing the fact of the<br \/>\nApex Court judgment Rukminis case it can be<br \/>\ndistinguished on the facts. In the present case what<br \/>\nwas contended by Shri Deshpande, that the Officer on<br \/>\nSpecial Duty has no jurisdiction at all to entertain<br \/>\nthe Second Revision for the above said two grounds<br \/>\nwhich are referred to earlier. Therefore, question<br \/>\ngoes to the root of the jurisdiction of the<br \/>\nrevisional authority and it is well-known that the<br \/>\nparties by consent cannot confer the jurisdiction on<br \/>\na Court or authority which has no inherent<br \/>\njurisdiction to deal with the case. In the present<br \/>\ncase in view of the above said judgments of this<br \/>\nCourt where, this Court has held that U\/s 257 (a)<br \/>\nsecond revision is not permissible; (b) that the<br \/>\nOfficer on Special Duty has no jurisdiction to decide<br \/>\nthe revision application (even if it is first<br \/>\nrevision). Therefore, the question is of the<br \/>\njurisdiction of the Officer on Special Duty that is<br \/>\nchallenged in this petition. Therefore, if the party<br \/>\nhas not taken the objection before the S.D.O. that<br \/>\ndoes not mean and said that the Officer on Special<br \/>\nDuty has a jurisdiction to decide the Second<br \/>\nRevision. Merely because the point is not raised<br \/>\nbefore the authority, one cannot say that the said<br \/>\nparty is precluded from raising the question or point<br \/>\nafter ultimate result of the proceedings. In view of<br \/>\nthis aspect, I am not impressed by the submission<br \/>\nmade by Shri Patil, that the point regarding<br \/>\njurisdiction was not raised shall not be allowed to<br \/>\nbe raised in this writ petition. As the question<br \/>\ngoes to the root of the matter. When it pertains to<br \/>\nthe question of jurisdiction, this Court in a writ<br \/>\npetition filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_5\">Article 226<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_6\">227<\/a> has to<br \/>\nconsider whether the authority which decided a matter<br \/>\nhas in fact has jurisdiction or not, on reading<br \/>\nof Section 257 it is clear that there is no provision<br \/>\nfor 2nd revision empowering the State Government to<br \/>\nhear and consider the judgment of a revisional<br \/>\nauthority rendered U\/s 257, in my judgment the State<br \/>\nGovernment has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a<br \/>\nrevision against an order or judgment passed by a<br \/>\nrevisional authority though that authority may be<br \/>\ninferior to the State Government. As such the point<br \/>\nraised in this writ petition will have to be<br \/>\nconsidered which accordingly I considered and held<br \/>\nthat no second revision lies U\/s 257 before the State<br \/>\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_51\"> 21. Shri Patil, invited my attention to the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this Court in case of Parmeshwar<br \/>\nSihoratan Bohara and another Vs. State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra and another (1997 [2] Maharashtra Law<br \/>\nJournal 252). Shri Patil, contended that in<br \/>\nParmeshwars case Division Bench of this Court was<br \/>\ncalled upon to consider the question whether under<br \/>\nMaharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of<br \/>\nDistribution) Order 1975 clause 24 &#8211; second appeal is<br \/>\ntenable. This Court after considering two judgments<br \/>\nof the Apex Court in Rukminis case (supra) and<br \/>\n Anudal Ammals case<br \/>\nconsidering the issue the Division Bench proceeded to<br \/>\nconsider the provisions of Rule 24.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_52\"> &#8220;6.Now, it becomes necessary to refer to<br \/>\nclause 24 of the Regulation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_53\"> &#8220;24. Power to call for and examine records<br \/>\nof proceedings and revise orders &#8211; If any<br \/>\nperson is aggrieved by an order passed by<br \/>\nthe Collector, the Commissioner, and if any<br \/>\nperson is aggrieved by an order passed by<br \/>\nthe Commissioner, the State Government, may,<br \/>\non an application made to him, or it by the<br \/>\naggrieved person, within thirty days from<br \/>\nthe date of receipt of such order, stay the<br \/>\nenforcement of such order. The Commissioner<br \/>\nor the State Government, as the case may be,<br \/>\nmay also call for and examine the record of<br \/>\nany inquiry or proceedings of the concerned<br \/>\nOfficer exercising or failing to exercise<br \/>\nthe powers under this order to add to,<br \/>\namend, vary, suspend or cancel any<br \/>\nauthorisation issued or deemed to be issued<br \/>\nunder clause 3 or any supply card issued or<br \/>\ndeemed to be issued under clause 6 or to<br \/>\nforfeit the deposit (or any part deemed<br \/>\nthereof) paid or deemed to be paid by a fair<br \/>\nprice shop or authorised agent as security<br \/>\nor to take any other action under the<br \/>\nprovisions prescribed by or under this<br \/>\norder, for the purpose of satisfying himself<br \/>\nor itself as to the legality or propriety of<br \/>\nthe order passed by such officer, and as to<br \/>\nthe regularity of the proceedings of such<br \/>\nofficer and may pass such order thereon as<br \/>\nhe or it, as the case may be, thinks fit:<br \/>\nProvided that State Government may at<br \/>\nany time, during the tendency of any inquiry<br \/>\nor proceedings or within one year from the<br \/>\ndate of any order passed by any officer<br \/>\nunder the provisions prescribed by or under<br \/>\nthis order, suo motu stay any pending<br \/>\ninquiry or proceedings or the enforcement of<br \/>\nsuch order if considered necessary and may<br \/>\ncall for and examine the record of any such<br \/>\ninquiry or proceedings, and pass such order<br \/>\nthereon as it thinks fit:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_54\">  Provided further that the Commissioner<br \/>\nor the State Government, as the case may be<br \/>\nshall not pass any order under this clause<br \/>\nwhich adversely affects any person unless<br \/>\nsuch person has been given a reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity of being heard&#8221; (emphasis<br \/>\nsupplied).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_55\"> A plain reading of the said clause shows<br \/>\nthat if a person is aggrieved by the order<br \/>\npassed by the Collector, revision will lie<br \/>\nbefore the Commissioner; and if one is<br \/>\naggrieved by the order passed by the<br \/>\nCommissioner a revision will lie before the<br \/>\nState Government. We may at this juncture,<br \/>\nadvert to the argument advanced by Shri<br \/>\nDeshpande, learned counsel to the effect<br \/>\nthat a revision can lie only against the<br \/>\norders passed under clauses 3 and 6 of the<br \/>\nRegulation. Clause 3 deals with issue of<br \/>\nauthorisation to fair price shops to obtain<br \/>\nand supply scheduled commodities; and clause<br \/>\n6 deals with power to issue of supply card<br \/>\nto a person or class of persons. Clause 3<br \/>\nenjoins that such authorisation can be<br \/>\nissued by State Government or Collector, and<br \/>\nclause 6 says, the State Government or the<br \/>\nCollector may issue or cause to issue supply<br \/>\ncard. According to the learned counsel,<br \/>\nsince authorisation under clause 3 can be<br \/>\nissued either by the Collector or the State<br \/>\nGovernment, and in this case the order was<br \/>\nby the Sub-Divisional Officer, revision can<br \/>\nbe entertained by the Commissioner. The<br \/>\nfurther contention appears to be, since the<br \/>\nCommissioner is not an authority mentioned<br \/>\nin clause 3 or 6 an order passed by him is<br \/>\nnot revisable under clause 24 as according<br \/>\nto the learned counsel clause 24 speaks of<br \/>\nrevision only with respect to orders under<br \/>\nclauses 3 and 6. The implication appears to<br \/>\nbe, the order of the Commissioner, if at<br \/>\nall, can be corrected only under the lst<br \/>\nproviso to clause 24. And since according<br \/>\nto the petitioner, there was no material to<br \/>\nexercise the suo motu power under the said<br \/>\nproviso, the order rendered by the<br \/>\nCommissioner is not amenable to the power in<br \/>\nthe said lst proviso also.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_56\"> 7. We are unable to accept the said<br \/>\ninterpretation placed by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor more than one reason. First of all,<br \/>\nclause 24 specifically mentions that from<br \/>\nthe order of the Collector, a revision shall<br \/>\nlie to the Commissioner; and from the order<br \/>\nof the Commissioner the aggrieved party can<br \/>\nmaintain a revision before the State<br \/>\nGovernment.(underline is mine) It may be<br \/>\nthat the Commissioner is not mentioned in<br \/>\nclause 3, but clause 24, which provides for<br \/>\nrevision, specifically mentions the<br \/>\nCommissioner as a revisional authority. The<br \/>\nassumption that the revisional power of the<br \/>\nState Government does not take in order<br \/>\npassed by the Commissioner is not<br \/>\nsustainable in view of the language of<br \/>\nclause 24. It should not be forgotten that<br \/>\nonce the revisional authority after hearing<br \/>\nthe party confirms the order, that order<br \/>\nalone will be the effective order because of<br \/>\nthe doctrine of merger. Once the revisional<br \/>\nauthority confirms the order, the order of<br \/>\nthe lower authority merges with the order of<br \/>\nthe revisional authority; even otherwise the<br \/>\norder of the Commissioner in revision has to<br \/>\nbe treated as an order under clause 3 of the<br \/>\nRegulation. What is significant is that<br \/>\nthis aspect is taken care of in clause 24<br \/>\nitself because, as noted, clause 24 says the<br \/>\nappropriate authority can suspend or cancel<br \/>\nany authorisation issued or &#8220;deemed to be<br \/>\nissued under clause 3&#8221;. This, in our view,<br \/>\nin effect makes the order passed by the<br \/>\nCommissioner as one passed under clause 3;<br \/>\nand this can be attained even by the<br \/>\noperation of the theory of merger once the<br \/>\ncontested matter is disposed of by the<br \/>\nCommissioner on a proper revision filed<br \/>\nbefore him. Here, as noted, clause 24<br \/>\nitself makes the order by the Commissioner<br \/>\ndeemed to be one under clause 3 of the<br \/>\nRegulation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_57\"> 8. Inasmuch as clause 24 does not contain<br \/>\nany statement as is obtained under<br \/>\nsub-section (5) of section 18 of Kerala Rent<br \/>\nControl Act making the order of the<br \/>\nCollector or Commissioner as final; on the<br \/>\nbasis of the decision in ;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_58\">cited supra, it cannot be contended that<br \/>\nsecond revision cannot be maintained.<br \/>\nClause 24, as noted, does not employ any<br \/>\nword so as to restrict its operation only to<br \/>\none revision. This has to be understood in<br \/>\nthe context of the fact that this order<br \/>\nitself was issued under sub-sections (1) and<br \/>\n(2) of <a href=\"\/doc\/158335608\/\" id=\"a_7\">section 3<\/a> of the Essential<br \/>\nCommodities Act, 1955. The preamble part of<br \/>\nthe said Act states that the same is an Act<br \/>\nto provide, in the interest of the general<br \/>\npublic, for the control of the production,<br \/>\nsupply and distribution of, and trade and<br \/>\ncommerce in, certain commodities. The<br \/>\ncommodities that would fall within the ambit<br \/>\nof the Act are essential commodities and<br \/>\nessential commodities are defined under<br \/>\nclause (a) of <a href=\"\/doc\/1144098\/\" id=\"a_8\">section 2<\/a> of the Act. The<br \/>\nwhole scope of the clauses in the Regulation<br \/>\nhave to be understood in the context of the<br \/>\naforesaid object of enacting the said Act<br \/>\nand also the promulgation of the Regulation.<br \/>\nIt is pertinent in this context to note that<br \/>\nthere is absolutely no challenge against the<br \/>\nvalidity of any of the provisions of the<br \/>\nsaid Act or regulation. We do not consider,<br \/>\na restricted meaning can be assigned to the<br \/>\npower of revision under clause 24 firstly<br \/>\nbecause the language of the said clause does<br \/>\nnot permit it, and secondly, the object of<br \/>\nthe Act and Regulation also does not allow<br \/>\nsuch restricted interpretation. Neither the<br \/>\nwords employed in clause 24 nor the context<br \/>\nsupport the interpretation sought to be<br \/>\nplaced by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners. It must be noted that one of<br \/>\nthe objects of the Act and Regulation is to<br \/>\ncontrol the distribution of essential<br \/>\ncommodities. Distribution is as much<br \/>\nimportant as production. Proper<br \/>\ndistribution with supervision by the<br \/>\nauthority concerned is a must in securing<br \/>\nthe object of the Act as well as Regulation.<br \/>\nIncidentally, it has to be noted that<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1200546\/\" id=\"a_9\">Article 39(b)<\/a> of the Constitution of India<br \/>\nalso directs that the State shall, in<br \/>\nparticular direct its policy towards<br \/>\nownership and control of the material<br \/>\nresources of the community are so<br \/>\ndistributed as best to subserve the common<br \/>\ngood. In interpreting the provision in the<br \/>\nAct as well as in the Regulation one should<br \/>\nnot miss the spirit underlining the said<br \/>\nprovision under <a href=\"\/doc\/555882\/\" id=\"a_10\">Article 39.<\/a> The Regulation,<br \/>\nsince is framed as per the provision in the<br \/>\nAct, is a subordinate legislation. The<br \/>\nlegislative wisdom in enacting a provision<br \/>\nas clause 24 cannot be called in question.<br \/>\nThe provision of further revision to the lst<br \/>\nrespondent is thus competent and the only<br \/>\nquestion is, whether as per the language<br \/>\nused in clause 24, such revision is<br \/>\npossible. As has already noted, revisional<br \/>\npower is expressly conferred on the State,<br \/>\nthere is no restriction in the clause which<br \/>\nwould lead to a conclusion that further<br \/>\nrevision to the State is any way<br \/>\nbarred.&#8221;(underline is mine)  <\/p>\n<p> It is to be noted that this Court was considering<br \/>\nclause 24 of the Regulation. This Court in para 7 of<br \/>\nthe report has quoted in extenso Clause 24.<br \/>\nComparing the provisions of Rule 24 it will be clear<br \/>\nthat plain reading of Section 257 of the Code, there<br \/>\nis no scope to come to the conclusion that there is<br \/>\nprovision for second revision. Shri Deshpande, on<br \/>\nthe other hand, placed strong reliance on the<br \/>\nConstitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Roop<br \/>\nChand Vs. State of Punjab and another . In Roop Chands case the Apex<br \/>\nCourt was considering certain provisions of East<br \/>\nPunjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of<br \/>\nFragmentation) Act (Punjab 50 of 1948).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_59\"> 22. Shri Deshpande, learned advocate brought<br \/>\nto my notice the majority view whereby the Apex Court<br \/>\nwhile interpreting <a href=\"\/doc\/774360\/\" id=\"a_11\">Section 42<\/a> of that Act held that<br \/>\nunless the statute specifically provides for a<br \/>\nrevision, one cannot assume jurisdiction and<br \/>\nentertain the proceedings. The Apex Court thus held:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_60\"> &#8220;7. It is now necessary to set out S.42 on<br \/>\nthe interpretation of which this petition<br \/>\ndepends. That section was amended by Act<br \/>\nXXVII of 1960 with retrospective effect and<br \/>\nit is the amended section that has to be<br \/>\nconsidered by us. The amended section is in<br \/>\nthese terms :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_61\">  <a href=\"\/doc\/774360\/\" id=\"a_12\">Section 42<\/a>.&#8221;The State Government<br \/>\nmay at any time for the purpose of<br \/>\nsatisfying itself as to the legality or<br \/>\npropriety of any order passed, scheme<br \/>\nprepared or confirmed or repartition made by<br \/>\nany officer under this Act call for and<br \/>\nexamine the records of any case pending<br \/>\nbefore or disposed of by such officer and<br \/>\nmay pass such order in reference thereto as<br \/>\nit thinks fit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_62\"> 8. The petitioners contention is that an<br \/>\norder which can be interfered with under<br \/>\nS.42 is an order passed under the Act by any<br \/>\nofficer in his own right and not an order<br \/>\nmade by the Government itself or by any<br \/>\nofficer exercising powers of the Government<br \/>\nupon delegation under S.41(1).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_63\"> 9. The question really is as to the<br \/>\nmeaning of the words &#8220;any order passed&#8230;<br \/>\nby any officer under this Act&#8221; in<a href=\"\/doc\/774360\/\" id=\"a_13\"> S. 42<\/a>.<br \/>\nDo these words include an order passed by an<br \/>\nofficer in exercise of powers delegated to<br \/>\nhim by the Government under S.41(1)? We do<br \/>\nnot think, they do.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_64\"> 10. Now, there cannot be much doubt that<a href=\"\/doc\/774360\/\" id=\"a_14\"> S.<br \/>\n42<\/a> makes a distinction between the<br \/>\nGovernment and an officer, because under it<br \/>\nthe Government is given power to interfere<br \/>\nwith an order passed by an officer and,<br \/>\ntherefore, it does not authorise the<br \/>\nGovernment to interfere with an order made<br \/>\nby itself. As we understood the learned<br \/>\nAdvocate General of Punjab, who appeared for<br \/>\nthe respondent State of Punjab, he conceded<br \/>\nthat position. He said that the Government<br \/>\ncould no doubt have itself heard an appeal<br \/>\npreferred under S.21(4) instead of getting<br \/>\nit heard by an officer to whom it delegated<br \/>\nits power, and if it did so, then it could<br \/>\nnot under S.42 interfere with the order<br \/>\nwhich itself passed in the appeal. We think<br \/>\nthat this is the correct position, and we<br \/>\nwish to make it clear that we are not basing<br \/>\nourselves on the concession made by the<br \/>\nlearned Advocate General. We feel no doubt<br \/>\nthat an order passed by an officer of the<br \/>\nGovernment cannot be an order passed by the<br \/>\nGovernment itself.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_65\"> 11. The question then arises, when the<br \/>\nGovernment delegates its power, for example,<br \/>\nto entertain and decide an appeal under<br \/>\nS.21(4), to an officer and the officer<br \/>\npursuant to such delegation hears the appeal<br \/>\nand makes an order, is the order an order of<br \/>\nthe officer or of the Government? We think<br \/>\nit must be the order of the Government., The<br \/>\norder is made under a statutory power. It<br \/>\nis the statute which creates that power.<br \/>\nThe power can, therefore, be exercised only<br \/>\nin terms of the statute and not otherwise.<br \/>\nIn this case the power is created by<br \/>\nS.21(4). That section gives a power to the<br \/>\nGovernment. It would follow that an order<br \/>\nmade in exercise of that power will be the<br \/>\norder of the Government for no one else has<br \/>\nthe right under the statute to exercise the<br \/>\npower. No doubt the Act enables the<br \/>\nGovernment to delegate its power but such a<br \/>\npower when delegated remains the power of<br \/>\nthe Government, for the Government can only<br \/>\ndelegate the power given to it by the<br \/>\nstatute and cannot create an independent<br \/>\npower in the officer. When the delegate<br \/>\nexercises the power, he does so for the<br \/>\nGovernment. It is of interest to observe<br \/>\nhere that Wills J. said in Huth V., Clarke<br \/>\n(1890) 25 Q.B.D. 391 that &#8221; the word<br \/>\ndelegate means little more than an agent&#8221; An<br \/>\nagent of course exercises no powers of his<br \/>\nown but only the powers of his principal.<br \/>\nTherefore, an order passed by an officer on<br \/>\ndelegation to him under S.41(1) of the power<br \/>\nof the Government under S.21(4), is for the<br \/>\npurposes of the Act, an order of the<br \/>\nGovernment. If it were not so and were to<br \/>\nbe held that the order had been made by the<br \/>\nofficer himself and was not an order of the<br \/>\nGovernment and of course it had to be one or<br \/>\nthe other then we would have an order made<br \/>\nby a person on whom the Act did not confer<br \/>\nany power to make it. That would be an<br \/>\nimpossible situation. There can be no order<br \/>\nexcept as authorised by the Act. What is<br \/>\ntrue of<a href=\"\/doc\/774360\/\" id=\"a_15\"> S. 21(4)<\/a> would be true of all other<br \/>\nprovisions in the Act conferring powers on<br \/>\nthe Government which can be delegated to an<br \/>\nofficer under S.41(1). If we are wrong in<br \/>\nthe view that we have taken, then in the<br \/>\ncase of an order made by an officer as<br \/>\ndelegate of the Governments power under<br \/>\nS.21(4) we would have an appeal entertained<br \/>\nand decided by one who had no power himself<br \/>\nunder the Act to do either. Plainly, none<br \/>\nof these things could be done.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_66\"> Considering the ratio of the Roop Chands case, it is<br \/>\nnot disputed that appeal and or revision is always<br \/>\ncreation of statute. The statute which provides for<br \/>\nremedy of appeal, the proceedings will be governed by<br \/>\nthe said statute. On plain reading of Section 257 I<br \/>\nam of the view that there is no scope to hold that<br \/>\nsecond revision is provided under the said Section.<br \/>\nIn my judgment therefore, the judgment of the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of Rameshs case is not applicable on<br \/>\nthe facts of this case as I am construing the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 257 of the Code which is not<br \/>\npara materia with Rule 24 of the Regulation 1975. In<br \/>\nview of this aspect, it is not possible for me to<br \/>\naccept the contention of Shri Patil and I reject the<br \/>\ncontentions of Shri Patil.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_67\"> 23. To conclude I hold that Officer on Special<br \/>\nDuty has committed an error in interfering with the<br \/>\nfinding of fact recorded by three authorities below;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_68\"> (ii) The Officer on Special Duty has no jurisdiction<br \/>\nto hear and decide the revision applications filed<br \/>\nU\/s 257.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_69\"> (iii) The second revision is not tenable. In view of<br \/>\nthis, the petition succeeds. The order passed by the<br \/>\nOfficer on Special Duty on 2nd November 1993 is<br \/>\nquashed and set aside by issuing writ of certiorari.<br \/>\nRule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_70\"> 24. Taking into consideration the close<br \/>\nrelations of the parties, there will be no order as<br \/>\nto costs. It is informed at the bar that the parties<br \/>\nhave already approached to the Civil Court to get<br \/>\ntheir rights decided. It is made clear that any<br \/>\nobservation made by this Court or the authorities<br \/>\nbelow shall not mean and construe to decide the<br \/>\nrights of the parties. These proceedings are in<br \/>\nrespect of taking entries in the revenue record. The<br \/>\nCivil Court is free to decide the suit on its own<br \/>\nmerits without being influenced by the result of this<br \/>\npetition or by the proceedings taken by the parties<br \/>\nbefore the revenue authorities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Sambappa S\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through &#8230; on 17 December, 2002 Author: A Naik Bench: A Naik JUDGMENT A.B. Naik, J. 1. In this petition the petitioner sought following reliefs. : &#8220;(A)Call for the Record and Proceedings of Rev. Revision No.RTS-5391\/CR-199\/L-6\/CR-44\/93, A &amp; R. from the Respondent No.ls [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sambappa S\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sambappa S\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-06T17:52:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"46 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sambappa S\\\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through &#8230; on 17 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-06T17:52:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":9311,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002\",\"name\":\"Sambappa S\\\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-06T17:52:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sambappa S\\\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through &#8230; on 17 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sambappa S\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sambappa S\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-06T17:52:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"46 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sambappa S\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through &#8230; on 17 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-06T17:52:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002"},"wordCount":9311,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002","name":"Sambappa S\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-06T17:52:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambappa-so-babappa-teli-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-17-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sambappa S\/O Babappa Teli vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through &#8230; on 17 December, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268356","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}