Shri Laxman Rathod Chorge v. Shri Subhashchandra Hiralal Shaha & Ors.

Shri Subhashchandra Hiralal Shaha & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. D.C. Pathak for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh S. Datar for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8. --- --- CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2012 P.C. : 1 This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and that of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal, refusing to entertain an Appeal at the instance of the present Petitioner. 2 The Petitioner claims to be entitled to a land which is governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, according to the Petitioner, on the strength of the certificate issued under Section 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 3 It is the case of the Petitioner that the certificate was issued in the name of one Kathod Raghe Chorge, the predecessor in title of the Petitioner. It was then contended Borey spb/ 908-9169-11.sxw that the Petitioner discovered that another certificate was issued in the name of Hiralal Shaha on 23rd September, 1976. This certificate could not have been issued when the first certificate in the name of predecessor-in-title was in force. 4 The Petitioner first unsuccessfully tried to have the revenue entries set aside and later realizing that the claim is covered by the Tenancy Act, approached the Sub -Divisional Officer by way of an Appeal. The appellate authority has refused to entertain the Appeal on the ground that the same has been instituted 31 years after the alleged certificate in favour of the predecessor -in- title of Respondent No.1 Hiralal Hargovind Shah was issued. The concurrent orders are passed on the fact that the Petitioner has no explanation for the delay in approaching the authorities. 5 This finding is based on the material that has been produced. If the authorities come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay much less satisfactory, then the exercise of discretion by them particularly, refusing to take cognizance of the Petitioner’s Appeal and the request therein, cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. 6 In such circumstances, there is no merit in the Petition. It is dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Borey