High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 15752.23.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 15752 OF 2023Rajendra Kashinath Bhusare And OthersVERSUSSumanbai Motiram Patil And Others...Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.T. Mahajan Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. S B. YawalkarRespondent No.2-Served. AGP for Respondents no.3,4 : Mr. D.R. Korade Advocate for Respondent 5-7 : Mr. P. H. Patil ...CORAM :S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.Dated:June 11, 2025FINAL ORDER :-1.Petitioners impugns the order dated 20.8.2018passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,Aurangabad in case No.90/B/2015/Jalgaon, by which thepetitioners prayer for condoning delay caused in filing appealagainst the order dated 30.6.2014 passed by the Sub DivisionalOfficer, Pachora, in Tenancy Appeal No.2 of 2011 has beendeclined.2.Respondent nos.1 and 2 instituted Tenancy AppealNo.2 of 2011 before the S.D.O., Pachora in which directionswere issued to Tahsildar to hand over possession of suit landgat no.238 situated at village Vadgaon to them. Aggrieved
Legal Reasoning
2 15752.23.odtpetitioners filed revision No.90/B/2015 Jalgaon before theMaharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad alongwith anapplication to condone the delay. Said application has beendismissed vide impugned order dated 20.8.2018 observing thatsufficient cause is not made out. It has been observed thatlearned S.D.O. Pachora on 30.6.2014 ordered under section 84of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948(for short said act) to evict petitioners from suit land and putrespondent nos.1 and 2 in possession. The limitation for filingappeal expired on 30.12.2014. Execution proceeding of saidorder was initiated by Tahsildar on 16.10.2014 and thereafterrevision was filed before the Tribunal. It is further observedthat reasons mentioned for condonation of delay areinsufficient and lacks bonafide. Consequently, dismissedrevision without admission.3.Mr. S.T. Mahajan, learned advocate appearing forpetitioners vehemently submits that learned MaharashtraRevenue Tribunal (for short MRT) adopted hyper-technicalapproach. According to him, petitioners have strong case onmerit. Although, application submitted by respondent nos.1and 2 before Sub Divisional Officer was barred by limitation, it 3 15752.23.odthas been erroneously entertained. Mr. Mahajan submits thatpetitioners are rustic persons. They were not properly advised.Many other proceedings between parties in relation to subjectmatter were pending. They were under bonafide belief thatthey need not assail impugned order.4.Mr. Mahajan would submit that suit land waspossessed by one Shankar. He was declared as protectedtenant. He was residing with one Kashinath and before hisdeath executed a registered sale-deed in his favour. Eventually,Kashinath acquired ownership of the land. Thereafter, son ofKashinath namely Rajendra transferred land in favour of oneMachindra under registered sale-deed. Machindra developedsaid land by carving out plots and sold out in favour ofdifferent persons. When, third party rights are created infavour of large number of persons, respondents initiatedpresent proceedings in the year 2002 claiming that they aredaughters of Shankar and sought eviction of persons inpossession invoking section 84 of the said Act. He wouldsubmit that, in this situation, decision on merit is solicited.5.Per contra, Mr.Yawalkar, learned advocateappearing for respondent nos.1 vehemently opposed the prayer 4 15752.23.odtto condone the delay. According to him, petitioners have failedin the proceeding seeking grant of probate of alleged will.Even, they have failed to establish their claim in civilproceeding. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are daughters of Shankar,who was protected tenant and recipient of certificate dated17.1.1955 under section 32(g) of the Act. Shankar executedregistered sale-deed dated 5.1.1962 in favour of Kashinath andin turn Kashinath executed will deed in favour of petitionerno.1.6.Mr. Yawalkar, would rely upon observations of theHonourable Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya PradeshVs. Ramkumar Choudhary in Special Leave Petition © DiaryNo.48636 of 2024 decided on 29.11.2024 and judgment incase of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and anotherreported in AIR 1998 SC 2276. 7.Having considered submissions advanced, it canbe observed that learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunalrefused to condone delay of 462 days caused in filing revisionagainst the order dated 30.6.2014 passed by the S.D.O.Pachora. Perusal of reasons supplied in support of condonationof delay would show that petitioners have averred that they 5 15752.23.odtwere not duly advised. After order of Sub Divisional Officer,they were under bonafide impression that revenue and civilproceedings touching to the subject matter of disputed land asfiled by petitioner no.1 are pending before the appellate andrevenue authority as well as this Court. Final outcome of thoseproceedings would take care of their rights. However, learnedMRT found that reasons so employed lacks bonafide. As such,declined to condone the delay.8.It is trite that the courts are empowered tocondone delay only when satisfactory explanation has beenoffered by party. It is also necessary to apply law of limitationwith all its rigour and equitable grounds cannot be taken aidof.9.In application filed by the petitioners they havegiven history of various legal proceedings between parties inrelation to suit land. In paragraph no.9, it is stated that duringpendency of RTC revision no.300 of 2011 before the DivisionalCommissioner, respondent nos.1 and 2 initiated tenancyproceedings before S.D.O. pachora under section 84 of theMaharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948 foreviction of petitioners from disputed land on the ground that 6 15752.23.odtmutation entry no.828 which was recorded in the name ofdeceased Kashinath i.e. father of the petitioner no.1 wascancelled vide order dated 29.2.2008 by Additional Collector,Jalgaon and confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashikvide order dated 15.6.2010 and eventually mutation entryno.1735 was recorded in the name of respondent nos.1 and 2.According to petitioners, they received a notice dated16.10.20215 issued in pursuance to the impugned order dated30.6.2014, by which they were asked to deliver possession ofthe disputed land to petitioners. Thereafter they took steps toassail order of the Sub Divisional Officer. Till then, they wereunder bonafide belief that pending revenue and civilproceeding touching to subject matter of the disputed landbetween parties, this Court would take care of their rights.10.Apparently, petitioners have tendered explanationfor delay that they were not properly advised or they wereunder misconception of law. Aforesaid reasons may be short toexplain delay of each and every day, but fact remains thatwhen there are multiple proceedings, particularly, in thetenancy matter, unless party is properly advised, there ispossibility of committing default to carry forward the 7 15752.23.odtproceeding decided by the revenue officers. Therefore, reasonsas given in the application cannot be termed as improbable orlacking bonafides. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to theobservations of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in caseof Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Anantnag and anotherVs. MST. Katiji and others reported in 1987 (2) SCC 107,wherein Supreme Court has laid down certain principles fordealing with prayer for delay condonations. It is observed thatordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging anappeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in ameritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold andcause of justice being defeated. Every day's delay need not beexplained. However, the doctrine must be applied in a rationalcommon sense pragmatic manner. When substantial justiceand technical considerations are pitted against each other,cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for theother side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice beingdone because of a non-deliberate delay. There is nopresumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or onaccount of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. Alitigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. It isfurther observed that, judiciary is respected not on account of 8 15752.23.odtits power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but becauseit is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.11.In light of aforesaid observations of the SupremeCourt unless delay is result of gross negligence or lacksbonafides, it deserves to be condoned. However, whilecondoning the delay, this Court will have to consider plight ofrespondents nos.1 and 2. They are claiming to be daughters ofShankar, who was original owner/tenant of the land.Relationship is not disputed whereas petitioners are claimingthrough the Kashinath, with whom Shankar was residingduring his last days and alleged to have executed sale-deeddated 5.1.1962 in his favour. Lateron, Kashinath executed will-deed in favour of Rajendra i.e. petitioner no.1. It appears thatlitigation as regards to probate in respect of the will and othercivil proceedings before revenue authorities were pendingbetween parties. Present proceeding under section 84 of theBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has beeninstituted by respondent nos.1 and 2 on conclusion of thedecision as regards to mutation entry between parties. Thefact remains that petitioners are enjoying possession of theproperty as against claim of respondent nos.1 and 2. In result,
Decision
9 15752.23.odtthis Court finds it appropriate to condone delay by imposingcosts of Rs.1.00 (Rs. One Lakh) upon petitioners as conditionprecedent to condone the delay of 462 days. Hence, followingorder.O R D E R i.Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”subject to condition that petitioners deposit costs ofRs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) in this Court to bepayable to respondent nos.1 and 2 within a period offour weeks from the date of this order.ii.On deposit of such costs, application for delaycondonation shall be treated as allowed and thelearned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall proceedto decide the case no.90/B/2015/Jalgaon on its ownmerits within a period of (1) one year from the dateof deposit of costs.iii.On deposit of costs amount, respondent nos.1 and 2shall be entitled to withdraw the same.iv.Writ Petition stands disposed off. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )…aaa-