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. 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. (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, or to any officer referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, it or he may pass such order thereon as it or he deems fit: Provided that, the State Government or such officer shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any question of right between private persons without having to the parties interested notice to appear and to be heard in support of such order: Provided further that, an Assistant or Deputy Collector shall not himself pass such order in any matter in which a formal inquiry has been held but shall submit the record with his opinion to the Collector, who shall pass such order thereon as he may deem fit." 8.For the reason mentioned earlier, it is obvious that the revisional power is conferred by section 257 of the Code of Assistant or Deputy Collector. Sub-section (34) of section 2 reproduced earlier provides that Sub-Divisional Officer means an Assistant or Deputy Collector. So obviously, the Sub-Divisional Officer can exercise the revisional power. 9.The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that assuming that the S.D.O. was empowered to entertain the revision, he could not have decided the revision but was bound to transmit the record with his opinion to the Collector. According to learned Counsel, S.D.O. was so bound to record his opinion and submit it to the Collector for decision, because of the second proviso to section 257, which provides that where in any matter a formal enquiry has been held, the Assistant or Deputy Collector, to be read here as S.D.O., shall not himself pass an order but usually submit the record with his opinion to the Collector. The provision is clear only thing needs to be considered as to whether this was the matter in which the Additional Tahsildar had held their formal enquiry. From the record, it appears that he has not done so. The provision is clear only thing needs to be considered as to whether this was the matter in which the Additional Tahsildar had held their formal enquiry. From the record, it appears that he has not done so. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the enquiry that was held is a formal enquiry because the Additional Tahsildar, had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. It is clear that mere issue of show cause notice and a consideration of its reply cannot be said to be result in holding a formal enquiry under the Code. The Code lays down the definite procedure for holding an enquiry. That procedure is provided under section 234 of the Code, which reads as under:- "(1) In all formal inquiries the evidence shall be taken down in full, in writing, in Marathi, by or in the presence and hearing and under the personal superintendence and direction of, the officer making the investigation or inquiry, and shall be signed by him. The officer shall read out or cause to be read out the evidence so taken to the witness and obtain his signature thereto in token of its correctness. (2) In cases in which the evidence is not taken down in full in writing by the officer making the inquiry he shall, as the examination of each witness proceeds, make a memorandum of the substance of what such witness deposes; and such memorandum shall be written and signed by such officer with his own hand, and shall form part of the record. (3) If such officer is prevented from making a memorandum as required aforesaid, he shall record the reason of his inability to do so. (4) When the evidence is given in English, such officer may take it down in that language with his own hand, and an authenticated translation of the same in Marathi shall be made and shall form part of the record." 10.The decision of formal enquiry is required to be recorded in accordance with section 235, which reads as follows:- "Every decision, after a formal inquiry, shall be in writing signed by the officer passing the same, and shall contain a full statement of the grounds on which it is passed." 11.The petitioners is not in a position to point out the full compliance of section 234 of the Code. In any case, the compliance with the material aspect of section 234 normally taking down the evidence in full and in writing the reading of evidence to the witness and the other requirements laid down in the section. 12.I am, therefore, clearly of view that there was no formal enquiry in the present case, and therefore, the S.D.O. was empowered to decide the revision himself and was not bound by the proviso to record his opinion and submit it along with his opinion to the Collector for decision. 13.The next point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the revision was barred by limitation. According to petitioner, the Additional Tahsildar had passed the order for regularisation of the unauthorised conversion to non-agricultural purpose in the year 1981. Therefore, the revision filed by the Gram Panchayat in the year 1983 ought not to have been entertained after the period of two years. Now, the Code does not provide a period within which a revisional authority may call for and examine the record or proceedings. Therefore, obviously the exercise of said power must be undertaken within a reasonable time. 14.Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in (State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1969(56) Supreme Court 1297, which arose under Bombay Land Revenue Code in that case, Their Lordships took the view that power of the Commissioner to revise order made under section 65 must be exercised within a few months of the order. Their Lordships have observed that this is so because such powers must be exercised within a reasonable time. Their Lordships however, have taken care to observe that the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and nature of the order which is being revised. In the present case, the order was passed by the Additional Tahsildar in the year 1981 in response to show cause notice issued to the petitioner, and on the petitioners application for regularisation. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat, Nerpersopant was not a party to the petition-application for regularisation, neither did the Additional Tahsildar issue any notice to the Gram Panchayat before passing of order for regularisation. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat, Nerpersopant was not a party to the petition-application for regularisation, neither did the Additional Tahsildar issue any notice to the Gram Panchayat before passing of order for regularisation. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, I am of view that the Gram Panchayat was entitled to invoke the revisional powers, upon coming to know of the order of regularisation, which they did some time in the year 1987. I am of view that the objection on the ground of limitation is not sustainable. In view of above, therefore, I see no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. 15.Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the land with construction thereon since about the year 1961, the petitioner shall be entitled to make such application as may be advised, to the appropriate authorities, in accordance with law. 16.The authorities shall consider the application, if tenable in law. 17.Rule is disposed of accordingly. Petition dismissed. -----