Bombay High Court
Juma Masjid Trust, Through Mohd. ... vs Abdul Aziz S/O Mohd. Shah And ... on 11 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 3150 of 2014
Petitioners : A) Jumma Masjid Trust, through Mohd. Salim
Mohd. Ishaque, aged about 56 years, resident
of Habib Nagar, Paratwada, Tahsil Achalpur,
igDistrict Amravati
B) Hamid Jaffar Khan, resident of Kasalpura,
Paratwada, Tahsil Achalpur, Dist. Amravati
C) Mohd. Harun s/o Shaikh Baba, resident of
Habib Nagar, Paratwada, Tahsil Achalpur,
District Amravati
D) Mohd Kalim Mohd. Rafique, resident of
Zaragharpura, Paratwada, Tahsil Achalpur,
District Amravati
E) Abdul Aziz Mohd. Faiyaz, resident of
Zaragharpura, Paratwada, Tahsil Achalpur,
District Amravati
versus
Respondents : 1) Abdul Aziz s/o Mohd. Shah, resident of
Sadar Bazar, Paratwada, Tahsil Achalpur,
District Amravati
2) (A) Rabiyani Abdul Jabbar .. Deleted
(B) Abdul Shakil Abdul Jabbar .. Deleted
(C) Akil Ahemad Abdul Jabbar
(D) Jamil Ahemad Abdul Jabbar
All residents of Sadar Bazar, Paratwada,
Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati
3) Abdul Munaf Mohd. Shah, Sadar Bazar,
ig Paratwada, Tahsil Achalpur, Dist. Amravati
4) Hafijabi Mohd. Shah, resident of Kazipura,
Angangaon Surji, District Amravati
5) Hamidabi Abdul Shah, resident of Nimkhed,
Tahsil Chandurbazar, District Amravati
6) Jubedabi Shabbir Ali, resident of Sadar
Bazar, Paratwada, Tahsil Achalpur, District
Amravati
7) Deputy Director of Land Records, Nagpur
Region, Divisional Commissioner Office,
Old Secretariat Building, Nagpur
Shri A. Shelat, Advocate for petitioners
Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for respondents no. 1, 2 (c)m 2 (d), 3 to 6
Respondents no. 2 (A) and 2 (B) deleted
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent no. 7
Coram : Z. A. Haq, J
Dated : 11th h July, 2016
Oral Judgment
1. Heard Shri A. Shelat, Advocate for petitioners; Shri R. L.
Khapre, Advocate for respondents no. 1, 2 (C), 2 (D) and respondents no. 3
to 6 and Shri H. R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
no. 7.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Deputy
Director of Land Records by which the appeal filed by the petitioners under
Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is dismissed and the
order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records on 18 th May,
2011 is maintained. By the order dated 24 th February 2014, the Deputy
Director of Land Records directed cancellation of entry taken by the Taluka
Inspector of Land Records on 25th March 2004 and the District
Superintendent of Land Records is directed to take entry in respect of
property in question, after following procedure according to law.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that there
was delay in filing the appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records
and, therefore, along with appeal memo, an application for condonation of
delay was filed, that he matter was posted for arguments on the application
praying for condonation of delay, however, on the same day, the appeal was
taken up for arguments on merits and without hearing the petitioner on
merits, the matter was closed for orders. In view of the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader was
requested to keep the Record & Proceedings available at the time of hearing.
Accordingly, the Record & Proceedings are produced by Assistant
Government Pleader. Learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned
Advocate for the respondents no. 1 to 6 have not been able to point out that
the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that they are not given an
opportunity of addressing the Authority on merits of the appeal, are not
correct and proper.
In view of the above, I am of the view that the impugned order
passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records dismissing the appeal filed by
the petitioners on merits, is unsustainable.
5. At this stage, Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for the respondents
no. 1 to 6 submits that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land
Records condoning the delay is without recording any reasons and, therefore,
it is also unsustainable. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has not been
able to counter the submission made on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 6.
6. Hence, the following order :-
(1) The impugned order is set aside.
(2) The matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Land Records
for considering the application of the petitioners praying for condonation of
delay afresh.
(3) After passing the order on application praying for condonation
of delay, the Deputy Director of Land Records shall pass appropriate orders
on the appeal, according to law.
Needless to say that the Deputy Director of Land Records shall
grant hearing to the concerned parties.
The petitioners and the respondents no. 1 to 6 shall appear
before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Amravati on 29 th August, 2016
and abide by the further orders in the matter.
(5) The petition is allowed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Z. A. HAQ, J
joshi
