Bombay High Court
Sumitrabai Vaman Jadhav And ... vs The Superintendent Of Land ... on 27 July, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} wp11709-14
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11709 OF 2014
1. Sumitrabai Vaman Jadhav PETITIONERS
Age - 42 years, Occ - Household
2. Yogesh Vaman Jadhav,
Age - 21 years, Occ - Agri
3. Anil Vaman Jadhav
Age - 25 years, Occ - Agri
All R/o Tidka, Taluka - Soygaon,
District - Aurangabad
VERSUS
1. The Superintendent of Land Records RESPONDENTS
Damdi Mahal, near Panchayat Samiti,
Aurangabad
2. Vilas Sonaji Jadhav,
Age - 40 years, Occ - Agri
R/o Tidka, Taluka - Soygaon,
District - Aurangabad
.......
Mr. Manoj V. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. A. P. Basarkar, AGP for respondent-State
Mr. S. S. Munde, Advocate for respondent No.2.
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 27th JULY, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
consent of learned advocates for the parties.
{2} wp11709-14
2. Sans other details the requisite factual matrix for decision
would be that, consolidation scheme which according to the
petitioner had been completed around 1967 and certain
proceedings were purportedly moved at the instance of
respondent No.2 only in January, 2014. While upon notice of the
same the petitioner had been before respondent No.1. He had
specifically taken a stand that there has been thirty seven years'
delay in making approach against consolidation scheme and
there is no plausible reason coming forth for condonation of
delay.
3. It appears that under order dated 28 th November, 2014,
respondent No.1 in spite of observing that the matter had been
closed for decision on delay condonation on 10 th November,
2014, appears to have been decided the appeal itself. This of
course, is rather incompatible and incongruous to the procedure,
which is expected generally to be followed by quasi judicial
authority.
4. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 purports to contend
that although it may have been closed for orders on condonation
of delay, yet it may be taken into account that the matter had
been pending for over eleven months before the authority and as
{3} wp11709-14
such, it may be that the authority had been apprised of the
factual and legal position during this period and as such, he has
decided the matter.
5. Although learned advocate for respondent No.2 has
contended so he has not been able to lay any hand as to on
which specific day or date the petitioners had an opportunity to
address the matter on merits.
6.
Endorsements as are appearing in the proceedings sheet
as well in the order as has been recorded on 28 th November,
2014, specifically the very first paragraph referred to as
preliminary (izkFkehd) and further recording in respect of arguments
indicate that the petitioners had addressed only on delay
condonation.
7. Though learned advocate for respondent No.2 also refers
to that the petitioners may have recourse open to alternate
remedy, however, having regard to the glaring facts, I do not
deem it appropriate, in the circumstances to relegate the
petitioners to alternate remedy.
8. It is being deemed appropriate that instead of whiling
away time, ends of justice can be made to meet with by setting
{4} wp11709-14
aside the impugned order, relegating the parties to respondent
No.1 for decision on delay condonation
9. In the circumstances, impugned order dated 28 th
November, 2014 passed by respondent No.1 - Superintendent of
Land Records, Aurangabad is set aside. The matter is restored
before it for decision on delay condonation. Writ petition as such,
stands allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
10.
It is open for the parties to address themselves afresh on
delay condonation before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 to
give proper opportunity to the parties concerned and proceed
with the matter as expeditiously as possible and to decide on the
delay condonation as early as possible, preferably within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. In
order to avoid further delay in appearance before the authority,
learned advocates for the parties fairly state that they would
instruct the parties to appear before respondent No.1 on 10 th
August, 2016, which shall obviate notice from the authority to
parties for appearance.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/wp11709-14
