PRASHANT PRABHAKARRAO MUKKAWAR Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference by the learned Single of this Court (Shri A.S. Chandurkar, J.) by his order dated 12-4-2018 is constituted to decide the following question of law :

(2.) The first decision in point of time on the aforesaid question is in the case of Bija Maroti Hatwar v. Kisan Chirkut Padole and another, 2015 1 MhLJ 282, in which it is held that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the revision application under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 (for short, "the said Act") and hence the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside. This decision was followed in the cases of (1) Narayan S/o Bhagwan Bholankar and others v. Dattatraya S/o Digambar Tayade and others [Writ Petition No.4609 of 2015 decided on 28-4-2016]; (2) Ramesh Damu Patil v. Purushottam Umrao Chavan and others, 2017 1 MhLJ 818; (3) Vilas Gajanan Bhujbal and others v. Pushpa Chandrakant Dabhade and others, 2018 2 MhLJ 322; and (4) Bachulal @ Narayandas s/o Rambilas Rathi and another v. Mohan Bhagwatrao Thakare and ors.,2016 MhLJOnline 52. In all these decisions, it is held that the Collector was not competent under sub-section (2A) of Section 23 of the said Act to delegate the powers of deciding the revision under sub-section (2) of Section 23 therein to the Sub-Divisional Officer and accordingly the decision was set aside.

(3.) In Shantaram Namdeo Ghule and another v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Jamod and others [Writ Petition No.5169 of 2015 decided on 18-12-2017], it is held that the powers exercisable by the Collector under Section 23(2) of the said Act can be delegated to the Sub-divisional Officer as per the order of delegation dated 28-2-1961 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to entertain, try and decide the revision application filed by the petitioners. This decision is by the same learned Single Judge, who delivered it in Bija Maroti Hatwar's case, cited supra, taking a contrary view even after referring to the said decision.