Kathod Ganpat Madhavi & Ors. v. Eknath Bhiwa Madhavi & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6794 OF 2012 Kathod Ganpat Madhavi and others. ..Petitioners -versus- Eknath Bhiwa Madhavi and others. ..Respondents. Mr.Sagar R. Agarkar, for the Petitioners. ............ ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 22nd August, 2012. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Perused the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane Division in Tenancy Appeal No.26/2008 and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated

23.04.2012 in Revision Application No.16/B/2010. 2 The Sub-Divisional Officer has refused to condone the delay and entertain an appeal at the instance of the present Petitioners. He has found, as a matter of record, that the Petitioners had notice of the proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which concluded way back on 30.06.1970 by grant of certificate under Section 32M. All such concluded matters are sought to be reopened by challenging the order dated 30.06.1970 in the year 2008. 3 The reasons for delay have neither been found to be sufficient or reasonable so as to exercise discretion in favour of the Petitioners. The reasons assigned include the fact that the Petitioners had notice of the proceedings. To my mind, such concurrent findings in the matters of discretion and particularly condoning of delay, cannot be interfered unless *2* wp.6794.12.942.sxw the discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or that relevant material has not been taken into consideration. In my view, this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction because none of these tests are satisfied in this case. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)