JUDGMENT :

R.K. DESHPANDE, J.

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 :

“Whether it is permissible for the Collector to delegate powers conferred on him by Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 to any Sub-Divisional Officer as defined by Section 2(34) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966? If such delegation of powers is permissible, whether such delegation would entitle the Sub-Divisional Officer to exercise jurisdiction under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906?”

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, reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 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, reported in 2017(1) Mh.L.J. 818; (3) Vilas Gajanan Bhujbal and others v. Pushpa Chandrakant Dabhade and others, reported in 2018(2) Mh.L.J. 322; and (4) Bachulal @ Narayandas s/o Rambilas Rathi and another v. Mohan Bhagwatrao Thakare and ors., reported in 2016 Mh.L.J. Online 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.

4. The learned Single Judge noted in the order of reference that there is a conflict between the two decisions in the cases of Shantaram Namdeo Ghule and Vilas Gajanan Bhujbal, cited supra, taking a contrary view and, therefore, the question of law framed, as above, was referred for decision by the larger Bench.

5. Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act being relevant, is reproduced below :

“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.”

We are concerned with the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the said Act. The power is essentially conferred upon the Collector, who is also made competent under sub-section (2A) therein to delegate the powers to any Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner