Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.491 of 2005
Smt. Mulabai W/o Jainarayan Agrawal,
Aged 56 years,
Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Hiwarkhed,
Tq. Telhara,
District Akola. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Additional Commissioner,
Amravati Division,
Amravati.
2. Smt. Kamalabai W/o Nandkishor Lakhotiya,
Aged 47 years,
Occu. Household work.
3. Shri Nandkishor S/o Nathmalji Lakhotiya,
Aged 56 years,
Occu. Business.
Both respondents No.2 and 3
r/o Hiwarkhed, Tq. Telhara,
District Akola.
4. Shri Jainarayan S/o Ratanlalji Agrawal.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:46:45 :::
2
5. Dr. Murlidhar S/o Bajranglalji Agrawal,
Aged 56 years.
6. Gulabchandra S/o Karnachandra Agrawal,
Aged 61 years.
7. Mohanlal S/o Bansilal Medhani,
Aged about 65 years.
Respondents No.4 to 7
r/o Hiwarkhed, Tq. Telhara,
District Akola. ...Respondents
Shri A.M. Ghare, Counsel for Petitioner.
Shri Anoop Parihar, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Shri J.T. Gilda, Counsel for Respondent No.2.
Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.
st
December, 2006
Dated : 1
Oral Judgment :
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
finally.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner in this case is
that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, decided the
proceedings before him without giving the petitioner an
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:46:45 :::
3
opportunity to tender his evidence. The original record
was called and the order-sheets show that the matter was
adjourned on 29-11-2001 to 21-1-2002. There are no
order-sheets from 21-1-2002 to 11-10-2002. The order-
sheet dated 11-10-2002 shows that the notices were
required to be issued to the respondents. Thereafter,
there is further order in the right-hand margin of order-
sheet dated 30-10-2002 with an endorsement that
“N.A.No.1, 3 & 5, notices not claimed, hence served. Placed
on record. N.A.No.2 & 4, notices are duly served. Placed.”
Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to
take the evidence of the respondents and decided the
matter. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the envelopes, which had been stated to be
“refused”, are not placed on record. He stated that the
petitioner was contesting the proceedings all along and,
therefore, had the petitioner come to know of the
proceedings, he would have definitely participated.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 states
that the notices were in fact served on the petitioner and
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:46:45 :::
4
the petitioner wasted his opportunity of hearing.
4. Ordinarily, the question of service of notice has to
be decided by the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned
by mentioning in the body of the order-sheet as to what he
felt about the service of notice. The recitals in the right-
hand margin create a doubt as to whether the notices were
in fact served or not, particularly so because the envelopes
are not on record. In view of this, in order to ensure that
the petitioner does not have a grievance that he was not
heard, it would be appropriate to pass the following order :
5. The petition is allowed. The impugned orders
passed by the Revenue Authorities are quashed and set
aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh inquiry by
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, which he shall complete
within a month from the date of this order. Both the parties
are directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Akot, without any notice, on 19-12-2006.
The learned counsel for the parties undertake that
their clients will not seek any adjournment before the Sub-
Divisional Officer, except on the ground of death or illness
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:46:45 :::
5
of such a nature, which immobilizes the parties.
It is made clear that the merits of the matter have
not been touched by this Court and the Authority below
shall decide the matter afresh on the evidence that may be
tendered before it.
6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
PDL/
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:46:45 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.491 of 2005
Smt. Mulabai W/o Jainarayan Agrawal,
Aged 56 years,
Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Hiwarkhed,
Tq. Telhara,
District Akola. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Additional Commissioner,
Amravati Division,
Amravati.
2. Smt. Kamalabai W/o Nandkishor Lakhotiya,
Aged 47 years,
Occu. Household work.
3. Shri Nandkishor S/o Nathmalji Lakhotiya,
Aged 56 years,
Occu. Business.
Both respondents No.2 and 3
r/o Hiwarkhed, Tq. Telhara,
District Akola.
4. Shri Jainarayan S/o Ratanlalji Agrawal.
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:46:45 :::
2
5. Dr. Murlidhar S/o Bajranglalji Agrawal,
Aged 56 years.
6. Gulabchandra S/o Karnachandra Agrawal,
Aged 61 years.
7. Mohanlal S/o Bansilal Medhani,
Aged about 65 years.
Respondents No.4 to 7
r/o Hiwarkhed, Tq. Telhara,
District Akola. ...Respondents
Shri A.M. Ghare, Counsel for Petitioner.
Shri Anoop Parihar, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Shri J.T. Gilda, Counsel for Respondent No.2.
Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.
st
December, 2006
Dated : 1
Oral Judgment :
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
finally.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner in this case is
that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, decided the
proceedings before him without giving the petitioner an
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:46:45 :::
3
opportunity to tender his evidence. The original record
was called and the order-sheets show that the matter was
adjourned on 29-11-2001 to 21-1-2002. There are no
order-sheets from 21-1-2002 to 11-10-2002. The order-
sheet dated 11-10-2002 shows that the notices were
required to be issued to the respondents. Thereafter,
there is further order in the right-hand margin of order-
sheet dated 30-10-2002 with an endorsement that
“N.A.No.1, 3 & 5, notices not claimed, hence served. Placed
on record. N.A.No.2 & 4, notices are duly served. Placed.”
Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to
take the evidence of the respondents and decided the
matter. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the envelopes, which had been stated to be
“refused”, are not placed on record. He stated that the
petitioner was contesting the proceedings all along and,
therefore, had the petitioner come to know of the
proceedings, he would have definitely participated.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 states
that the notices were in fact served on the petitioner and
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:46:45 :::
4
the petitioner wasted his opportunity of hearing.
4. Ordinarily, the question of service of notice has to
be decided by the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned
by mentioning in the body of the order-sheet as to what he
felt about the service of notice. The recitals in the right-
hand margin create a doubt as to whether the notices were
in fact served or not, particularly so because the envelopes
are not on record. In view of this, in order to ensure that
the petitioner does not have a grievance that he was not
heard, it would be appropriate to pass the following order :
5. The petition is allowed. The impugned orders
passed by the Revenue Authorities are quashed and set
aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh inquiry by
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, which he shall complete
within a month from the date of this order. Both the parties
are directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Akot, without any notice, on 19-12-2006.
The learned counsel for the parties undertake that
their clients will not seek any adjournment before the Sub-
Divisional Officer, except on the ground of death or illness
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:46:45 :::
5
of such a nature, which immobilizes the parties.
It is made clear that the merits of the matter have
not been touched by this Court and the Authority below
shall decide the matter afresh on the evidence that may be
tendered before it.
6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
PDL/
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:46:45 :::