Manohar Shridhar Khadse & Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The present petition challenges order passed by the respondent No.1, the State of Maharashtra, through Minister of Revenue, in Appeal Case No.2019/C.No.313/J-9 on 09.07.2025. It also prays for restoration of the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the respondent No.2, Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.

Facts, as can be seen from the petition, are as under:

(4.1) The respondent Nos.7 to 15 herein filed an application before the Tahsildar, i.e. respondent No.5, thereby stating that the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 have forcibly obstructed their right of way through the boundaries of field in Gut No.90/1 and 91, Tahsil Zari Jamni, District - Yavatmal to approach their respective fields.

After hearing the parties, the Tahsildar passed an order initially on 24.10.2011 and thereafter, passed a revised order on the next day i.e. 25.10.2011.

Being aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent Nos.7 to 15 filed an appeal before the respondent No.4, the Sub-Divisional Officer, but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2012 (not filed on record). In the said order, the Sub-Divisional Officer observed that there is no material difference in the order dated 24.10.2011 and 25.10.2011.

The petitioners chose to challenge the said order by filing an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the respondent No.3 i.e. the Additional Collector, but the same was dismissed. This constrained the petitioner to file a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.6335/2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2013. This Court directed the respondent No.3 to decide the appeal afresh on its own merits.

On remand, the respondent No.3 rejected the request of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 for grant of way through the said fields vide order dated 27.05.2013. The said respondents filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner i.e. the respondent No.2, but the same was dismissed on 20.03.2018. The respondents, thereafter, challenged the said orders before the respondent No.1 by filing a revision. The said revision came to be allowed by the respondent No.1. This order is impugned in the present petition.

I have heard Mr. Dhore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Anand Shinde, learned counsel appearing as caveator for respondent No.8 and Mr. Ghurde, learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order of the respondent No.1 is totally erroneous and depicts non-application of mind. He further submits that the first respondent has erred in allowing the revision preferred by the respondent Nos.7 to 15, looking at the narrow scope of the revision under the Land Revenue Code. He further submits that there are only two reasons which have weighed with the respondent No.1 in allowing the revision. The first amongst them is a Government Resolution dated 22.05.2025 and the provisions of Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

As far as the said Government Resolution is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the same has been clarified by the state-wide a circular dated 20.04.2026. The same has not been considered by the respondent No.1 while allowing the revision of the respondent Nos.7 to 15. He would also submit that the reliance placed by the respondent No.1 on Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is also misconceived, inasmuch as there was no material difference in the order dated 24.10.2011 and 25.10.2011, which would amount to review and therefore a sanction would be required.

Per contra, Mr. Shinde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8/caveator opposes the contentions. He submits that the order is perfectly legal and valid, inasmuch as the respondent No.1 has taken into consideration, all the legal and factual aspects of the matter and thereby, allowed the revision.

The rival contentions fall for my consideration.

As has been rightly submitted by Mr. Dhore, learned counsel, and even after perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, only two factors have weighed with the said respondent while allowing the revision filed by the respondent Nos.7 to 15. The first is the reliance placed on the Government Resolution dated 22.05.2025.

I have gone through the circular dated 20.04.2026, which clearly provides that the main object of Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is to provide reasonable access to the concerned landholders for approaching their respective lands/fields in question. It also observes that it has come to notice that by taking aid of the Government Resolution dated 22.05.2025, the revenue authorities are granting way which is totally new and was non-existent. The said practice is clearly not within the ambit and scope of the said Government Resolution. The circular, therefore, directs that if there is an alternative way, no new way should be granted and such applications or requests should be forthwith rejected.

If the said Government Resolution and the circular are read in conjunction, the reasoning appearing in the impugned order cannot be countenanced. The mischief which is sought to be curbed by the circular dated 20.04.2026 is only done by the respondent No.1. This is apparent from paragraph 6.4 of the impugned order. Even though no express or specific reason is mentioned as to why the Government Resolution dated 22.05.2025 is applicable, the impugned order takes into consideration the said Government Resolution while allowing the revision filed by the respondent Nos.7 to 15. The reasoning, therefore, cannot be countenanced.

The next aspect which has weighed with the respondent No.1 is Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Section 258 of the said code provides for power of the State Government, revenue or any revenue or survey officer to review his orders. The proviso to the said section contemplates that if the Collector or the Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, on the ground of clerical mistake, he would obtain the sanction of the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner before such order is passed. It also provides for various contingencies when a review can be permitted.

If the order dated 24.10.2011 and 25.10.2011 are perused, the subsequent order dated 25.10.2011 clearly amounts to review. In the initial order, there was a mention of the ingress and egress of the bullock carts, however, the same is conspicuously absent in the subsequent order. Even if it is assumed that both the orders and more particularly, the subsequent order, does not in substance alter the tenor of the order, however, it was minimum expected of the Tahsildar to issue a notice to all the stakeholders before altering such order. The said exercise seems to be not done.

However, the respondent No.1 having reached to a finding that both the orders cannot be sustained for non-following of Section 258, it was expected of the said respondent to remand the matter to the Tahsildar by setting aside all the orders. However, it has straightaway chosen to allow the revision and thereby quashing the order of the Commissioner. In my considered opinion, the said exercise cannot be in consonance with the provisions of law. In that view of the matter, following order is passed:

With these directions, the petition is allowed and disposed of.