AMINUDDIN SHEIKH HAFIZUDDIN Vs. BHAOJI HIRAMANSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges an order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Akot, dismissing a revision application filed by the petitioner before that officer against an order of allotment of land in favour of respondent No. 1 by the Naib Tahsildar, on July 12, 1966.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be a landless person. 3 acres and 17 gunthas of land out of field survey number 94 with a total area of 17 acres and 26 gunthas at village Talegaon Bk., in Akot Taluq of Akola district, were declared surplus and vesting in the State. After possession was taken under a Panchanama, proceedings were initiated before respondent No. 2, that is, the Naib Tahsildar, Akot, for grant of that land to persons eligible under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The original records of the proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar as well as the Sub -Divisional Officer have been made available at the hearing. Even though information given in the petition and the documents filed by the petitioner is insufficient to gather all the necessary facts, we have had the benefit of the records of the revenue proceedings before us and they are referred to in this order.

(3.) TO resume the progress of the revision application before the Sub -Divisional Officer, it is to be noted that the Sub -Divisional Officer dismissed the revision application without notice to the opposite side on August 26, 1966, observing: There is no provision of appeal or revision under section 33(1) of the Ceiling Act in respect of distribution of surplus land under Section 27 (1) of the Ceiling Act. The application, therefore, cannot be entertained. Inform the applicants accordingly and file. It is this order of the Sub -Divisional Officer which is challenged before us by the petitioner. There is no doubt that the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer cannot be attacked successfully on the ground either of want of jurisdiction or* any error of exercise of jurisdiction. No such application for revision could lie before the Sub -Divisional Officer against the order of the authorised person granting land under the Ceiling Act. But we have heard the petitioner at length and we have come to the conclusion that even though the remedy pursued by the petitioner was not available to him, the proper order that should have been passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, having reference to the provisions of the Act, was to direct presentation of the revision application to the proper authority.