Sagar S/O. Mallanna Khandare vs Madhukar Mallanna Khandre And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1508 Bom

                                                                                   wp1063.16
                                            1




                                                                                
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                    
                          WRIT PETITION     No. 1063 OF 2016


    Sagar s/o Mallanna Khandare
    aged about 65 years,




                                                   
    Occupation : Agriculturist.
    R/o Pimpri (Road), Tah. Kelapur,
    Distt. Yavatmal.                                        .... PETITIONER.




                                          
                              VERSUS
                               
    1. Madhukar Mallanna Khandre,
       aged about 52 years, Occ.: Agriculturist.
                              
    2. Sau. Rekha w/o Madhukar Khandre,
       aged about 48 years, Occupation : Agriculturist

       Both R/o Pimpri (Road), Tah. Kelapur,
      


       Distt. Yavatmal.
   



    3. Sau. Titisa w/o Krushna Devghare,
       aged about 45 years, Occupation : Agriculturist
       r/o Near Sai Mandir, Akhada Ward,
       Pandharkawada, Tah. Kelapur,





       Distt. Yavatmal.

    4. Superintendent of Land Records,
       Yavatmal.

    5. Deputy Superintendent of Land Records,





       Kelapur, Tah. Kelapur,
       Distt. Yavatmal.                                      ....  RESPONDENTS.


                                     ....
    Shri A.S. Dhore Advocate for the Petitioner.
    Shri Shyam Ahirkar, AGP, for respondents 4 and 5.
                                     .....
                                       CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 13.04.2016.

wp1063.16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of parties.

2. The only ground, and which is a substantial ground,

raised in this writ petition is challenge to the impugned order

regarding condonation of delay passed by the Deputy

Superintendent of Land Records, Kelapur. It is stated that no

legal reasons are stated in the impugned order for allowing the

delay condonation application.

3. On perusal of the impugned order, one can see that

what the petitioner is stating before this Court is absolutely

correct. There is no legal reason stated in the impugned order.

The reason given is that the petitioner went on issuing threats to

commit suicide and, therefore, respondent no. 4 found it

necessary to decide the matter on merits of the case. This

cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. Even otherwise, the

learned counsel for the petitioner states that no such threat as

mentioned in the impugned order was ever issued. It is expected

of a quasi judicial authority, like respondent no. 4, to decide the

wp1063.16

case before him in accordance with law and not influenced by the

emotions or sentiments. In the legal proceedings, personal

perceptions and emotions do not have any role to play.

Therefore, the impugned order has to go.

4. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned

order is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded back

to respondent no. 4 for deciding the case afresh in accordance

with law by keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

JUDGE

/TA/