Bombay High Court
KANTABAI BANSILAL BIYANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court set aside the letters dated 07‑08‑2023 issued by the Additional Divisional Commissioner as they were not in accordance with the law.
Summary
Kantabai Bansilal Biyani filed two writ petitions challenging letters dated 07‑08‑2023 issued by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, which directed the Collector of Jalgaon to review earlier orders under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioner alleged that the Collector’s original orders dated 27‑03‑2023 and 29‑03‑2023 were set aside without following due procedure and that the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s intervention was improper. The Additional Divisional Commissioner submitted an affidavit stating that a preliminary enquiry found merit in a complaint by respondent No. 6 and that the Collector’s orders were issued without due process, justifying a review. The Court examined whether the Additional Divisional Commissioner had authority to quash the Collector’s orders and whether the procedural requirements of Section 258 were complied with. Finding the letters to be ultra vires and not in accordance with law, the Court quashed the letters and allowed both writ petitions. It also granted respondent No. 6 liberty to challenge the Collector’s order through appropriate proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s letters directing a review of the Collector’s orders are valid under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
- Whether the Collector’s orders dated 27‑03‑2023 and 29‑03‑2023 were passed in violation of the procedural requirements of Section 258.
- Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s directions.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 258
Subjects
- writ petition
- quashing order
- administrative law
- due process
- Section 258
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- Additional Divisional Commissioner
- Collector
- locus standi
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:1549
1 WP / 11563 / 2023+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1034 WRIT PETITION NO. 11563 OF 2023
KANTABAI BANSILAL BIYANI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11568 OF 2023
KANTABAI BANSILAL BIYANI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for petitioner in both WPs : Mr. Ajay G. Talhar
AGP for the respondent – State : Ms. D.S. Jape
Advocate for respondent no. 6 : Mr. P.P. More
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 13 JANUARY 2026
PER COURT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By way of present petitions, the petitioner assails the
letters dated 07.08.2023, respectively, issued by the Additional
Divisional Commissioner, Nashik to the Collector, Jalgaon whereby
Additional Divisional Commissioner directed the Collector to pass an
appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the
parties concerned.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Talhar points out that
the order passed by the Collector which was in favour of the petitioner,
2 WP / 11563 / 2023+
was set aside by the Additional Divisional Commissioner on the basis
of the simple application tendered by respondent no. 6.
4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Additional
Divisional Commissioner, namely, Nilesh Gorakh Sagar filed a detailed
affidavit in reply on 15.12.2025. The Additional Divisional
Commissioner has made following submissions in paragraph nos. 7
and 8, which read as under :-
“7. I say that a complaint was received by the Divisional
Commissoner Office Nashik addressed to the Divisional
commissioner by the respondent No. 6. I say that a
preliminary enquiry into the complaint came to be
conducted by verifying the records and thereafter office
note dated 02/08/2023 came to the proposed to the
Divisional Commissioner Nashik Division through e-office.
I say that in the said office note it is proposed that the
complaint as was filed by respondent no. 6 had substance.
I say that the said office note proposed that collector
Jalgaon be directed to conduct a review of earlier order
dated 27/3/2023 and 29/3/2023 under the provisions of
section 258 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 and
pass a fresh order by following due procedure and by
giving opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties.
8. I say and submit that the said office note was put up
along with the proposed letter by the Naib Thahshildar on
03.08.2023. I say and submit that the same was approved
by me on 04/08/2023, I say that, I have put my note on the
same, that after going through the original R & P prima
facie it appears that the order dated 27/03/2023 and
corrigendum dated 29/03/2023 are issued without following
due procedure. I have also observed that the officer who
has passed the orders is transferred and new officer has
taken charge as Collector and therefore the new Collector
should take the orders in question in review under section
258 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. I say that the
said note and the letter prepared was thereafter forwarded
to the Divisional Commissioner for approval. I further say
that the Divisional Commissioner approved the same on
04/08/2023. I further say that upon approval, the letter
3 WP / 11563 / 2023+
came to be corrected by putting upon it “approved by
Divisional Commissioner” and upon the said approval and
directions of the Divisional Commissioner the impugned
order came to be passed. I further say that the corrected
draft of letter was submitted for approval and on
07/08/2023 and came to be approved on 07/08/2023.
Annexed herto and marked as Exhibit “R-3” is copy of the
office note.”
Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present writ petitions by setting
aside the order passed by the learned Additional Divisional
Commissioner.
5. In view of that, both the petitions are allowed. Letters dated
07.08.2023 issued by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik are hereby quashed and set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 seeks a liberty to
challenge the order passed by the District Collector by filing the
appropriate proceedings. Mr. Talher objects for the same.
7. Liberty is granted to respondent no. 6 to challenge the
same, by filing appropriate proceedings.
8. If the respondent no. 6 files appropriate proceedings, the
issue of locus of the petitioner including whether the respondent no. 6
is an interested person, shall be considered by the authority and then
the authority to consider the same and pass order in accordance with
law.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
arp/
Checking your session…