JUDGMENT - BOBDE S.A., J.:---Heard Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Deopujari, learned A.G.P. for the State.

2.The petitioner apparently started using 263 sq. mts. of land in Survey No. 195 of Nerpersopant for non-agricultural purpose. He did not obtain any permission for converting the use of this land for non-agricultural purpose. The non-agricultural purpose for which he put the land for commercial and residential.

3.The Tahsildar, therefore, issued a show cause notice to him. Even though the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat, no notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat. In addition to replying to show cause notice to explain why he is using the land for non-agricultural purpose. The petitioner also made an application for regularising the use of the land for non-agricultural purpose. By merely consulting the other charges, the Additional Tahsildar regularised unauthorised use of the land for non-agricultural purpose, in exercise of his powers under sections 45, 47(b) and 114 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short "the Code"). In pursuance to the regularisation, the Additional Tahsildar granted a Sanad under section 44 of the Code.

4.In the year 1983, the petitioner applied for revision of the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar under section 257 of the Code. The S.D.O., who heard the revision allowed it, and set aside the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar in a well reasoned order. The Sub-Divisional Officer observed that the land is F-Class land, which was meant for "Khalwadi" and that the Additional Tahsildar ought to have made an enquiry into ownership of the petitioner. The S.D.O. examined the question whether the land was given to the Gram Panchayat for a market. However, the jurisdiction of the S.D.O. to entertain the revision application was questioned by the petitioner on the ground that section 257 of the Code does not empower the S.D.O. to entertain the revision application and that the jurisdiction is conferred only on the Assistant or Deputy Collector. The S.D.O. rejected that contention on the ground that the S.D.O. is a subordinate Revenue Officer of State Government by virtue of section 11 of the Code. As a matter of law, the answer lies in the definition of Sub-Divisional Officer in section 2 of sub-section (34) of the Code, which defines the S.D.O. reads as follows:-

"Sub-Divisional Officer" means an Assistant or Deputy Collector who is placed in charge of one or more sub-divisions of a district."

5.The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the S.D.O. allowing the revision. The R.D.C. dismissed the appeal by his order dated 25-12-1987. The petitioner preferred an another Revision before the Commissioner, Amravati, dismissed it by an order dated 29-6-1989. These orders are impugned in this writ petition.

6.Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly, submitted that the S.D.O. had no jurisdiction to call for, and examine the records of the Additional Tahsildar, because the S.D.O. is not an officer designated by section 257 of the Code to hear the revision. This submission does not appear to be correct.

7.Section 257 of the Code, reads as follows:-

"(1) The State Government any revenue or survey officer, not inferior in rank to an Assistant or Deputy Collector or a Superintendent of Land Records, in their respective departments, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate revenue or survey officer, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer.

(2) A Tahsildar, a Naib Tahsildar, and a District Inspector of Land Records may in the same manner call for and examine the proceedings of any officer subordinate to them in any matter in which neither a formal nor a summary inquiry has been held.

(3) If in any case, it shall appear to the State Government

Click Here to Read the rest of this document