The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 23(2A) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 and the validity of the delegation of powers by the Collector.

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 3rd March,2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Daund-Purandar Sub-Division, Purandar (Saswad) in Revision Application No.29 of 2013 thereby setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar on the ground that the Sub Divisional Officer had no power to decide the revision application in view of the provisions under section 23(2A) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 (for short the said Act) and also on the ground that the Collector had no power to delegate the powers conferred on him under section 23 to the Sub-Divisional Officer.

3. It is not in dispute that the impugned order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 23 (2A) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. Section 23 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 reads thus :-

23. (1) There shall be no appeal from any order passed by a Mamlatdar under this Act.

(2) But the Collector may call for and examine the record of any suit under this Act, and if he considers that any proceeding, finding or order in such suit is illegal or improper, may, after due notice to the parties, pass such order thereon, not inconsistent with this Act, as he thinks fit.

[(2A) The Collector may delegate the powers conferred on him by this section to any [Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner] subordinate to him];

(3) Where the Collector, [Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner] takes any proceedings under this Act he shall be deemed to be a Court under this Act.

4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to section 23(2A) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 and would submit that under section 23(2A), the collector though has power to delegate the powers conferred on him under that provision, the collector can delegate such powers only upon Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner who are subordinate to him. He submits that the sub-divisional officer is not one of the officer described under section 23(2A) to exercise the powers of the collector under section 23(2) who can be delegated such powers. In support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this court (i) in case of Bija s/o. Maroti Hatwar vs. Kisan s/o. Chirkut Padole & Anr., 2015(1) MAH.L.J. 282 and in particular paragraphs 4 to 9, (ii) in case of Ramesh Damu Patil vs. Purushottam Umrao Chavan & Ors., 2017(1) MAH.L.J. 818 (paragraphs 8 to 13), (iii) an unreported judgment of this Court Bench at Nagpur in case of Narayan Bhagwan Bholankar & Ors. vs. Dattatraya Digambar Tayade in Writ Petition No. 4609 of 2015 delivered on 28th April, 2016 (paragraphs 5 to 9) and (iv) an unreported judgment of this Court, Bench at Nagpur in case of Bachhulal @ Narayandas s/o. Rambilas Rathi & Another vs. Mohan Bhagwatrao Thakare & Ors. in Writ Petition No.757 of 2016 on 8th July, 2016 (paragraphs 3 and 4).

5. Learned A.G.P. placed reliance on the communication dated 1st August, 1996 issued by the Office of the Collector, District Magistrates, Pune i.e. an order purportedly passed under section 23(2A) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 thereby delegating the powers under section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 to the Assistant Collectors and Sub Divisional Officer in the District Pune. He submits that in view of the specific powers having been delegated by the Collector upon the Sub-Divisional Officer, the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is thus not without jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 on the other hand made an attempt to distinguish the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the definition of Sub-Divisional Officer under section 2(