Babruwahan Vithoba Boyane And ... vs Laxman Dajiba Paharekari And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4579 Bom

                                          1                    WP-3617.14.doc




                                                                           
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                   
                         WRIT PETITION NO.    3617 OF 2014


     1.       Baburwahan s/o Vithoba Boyane
              Age 56 years, occup. Agril.,




                                                  
     2.       Vishnu s/o Babruwahan Boyane
              Age 25 years, occup. Agril.,




                                       
     3.       Mahesh s/o Babruwahan Boyane,
              Age 31 years, occup. Service,
                             
              All r/o Rani Ankulga, Tq. Shirur -
              Anantpal, Dist. Latur                         .. Petitioners
                            
                      versus

     1.       Laxman s/o Dajiba Paharekari,
              Age 61 years, occup.
      


     2.       Shankar s/o Waman Shendge,
              Age 46 years, occup. Agril.,
   



     3.       Sonabai w/o Wamanrao Shendge
              Age 56 years, occup. Housewife,

              All r/o Rani Ankulga,





              Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur

     4.       The District Superintendent of
              Land Records, Collector Office Building,
              Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur                    .. Respondents





                          ----
              Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for petitioners
              Mr. Santosh B. Gastgar, Advocate for respondent No.1
              Mr. A.P.Basarkar, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondent no.4




    ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2016 00:23:47 :::
                                              2                   WP-3617.14.doc




                                                                             
                                   CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
                                   DATE :        9th August, 2016




                                                     
     ORDER :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned

counsel for parties by consent, finally.

2. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 18-02-2014 in

file bearing No. Land/PHM/Appeal/SR 36/13 whereunder, request

of respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 for carrying out corrections to the

consolidation scheme which has been finalized way back in the

year 1978 has been purportedly allowed by The District

Superintendent of Land Records, Latur.

3. Learned counsel for parties are not at loggerheads about

that the consolidation scheme has been finalized in 1978

whereas application for correction in the same had been filed in

2013, and upon appearance, petitioners had protested against

maintainability of application on the ground of delay and further

that no application seeking condonation of delay in filing

proceedings had been filed by respondents no. 1 to 3.

4. While the petitioners had submitted their response to the

proceedings, objecting the same on the ground of delay and

after the matter had been closed for orders, an application had

3 WP-3617.14.doc

been moved for condonation of delay. The contention on behalf

of the petitioners that no such application was ever served on

them is also not disputed. Impugned order has been passed

condoning delay upon reasons appearing in application for

condonation of delay subsequently filed without serving

petitioner and without giving opportunity to the petitioner.

5. The reasons which weighed with the authority for

consideration of condonation of delay, as such, could have been

a matter for consideration, had an opportunity been let to the

petitioners to address themselves in respect of those reasons.

Since the maintainability of the proceedings on the ground of

delay is being questioned, it would be expedient in the interest

of justice, instead of getting entangled into the technicalities

about alternate remedy being available or for that matter,

petitioners may go ahead with the orders passed, since the facts

as aforesaid are not disputed, the situation can be salvaged by

relegating parties to the authority concerned for hearing on

delay condonation application.

6. In the circumstances, writ petition stands allowed in terms

of prayer clause (C) and disposed of.

7. impugned order dated 18-02-2014 passed by respondent

no. 4 - District Superintendent of Land Records, Latur in File No.

4 WP-3617.14.doc

Land/PHM/Appeal/SR 36/13 stands set aside. The proceedings

are restored to file with the authority along with application for

condonation of delay. The parties be given opportunity to

address themselves on delay condonation application and letting

them adduce evidence, if any. Application for condonation of

delay shall be decided first. In order to avoid further delay in

hearing on delay condonation application, learned counsel for

parties, on instructions, gracefully agree to appear before the

authority on 22-08-2016 which shall obviate issuance of notice

for appearance of parties.

8. Rule made absolute accordingly.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,

JUDGE pnd