Shahuraj Bapurao Dhirgule vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9801 Bom

                                      1                             WP-4345-14


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 4345 OF 2014



       Shahuraj s/o Bapurao Dhirgule
       Age 58 years, occup : Agril.,
       R/o Dayanand Nagar,
       Naldurge Road, Tuljapur,
       Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad                         .. Petitioner

               versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra,
       Through the Secretary,
       Revenue and Forest Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai

2.     Vijaysing s/o Raosaheb Bhosale,
       Age : 70 years, occup : Agril.,
       R/o Bhosale Galli, Tuljapur
       Tq. Tuljapur, Dist : Osmanabad                .. Respondents

            ----
Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. Vaishali N.Patil-Jadhav, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1


                                     CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 19-12-2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and

learned Assistant Government Pleader finally by consent.

2. Petitioner is purportedly aggrieved by order dated 03-07-2013

passed by learned Deputy Commissioner (Ent. Duty), Aurangabad in

revision preferred by present petitioner bearing No.

2 WP-4345-14

ROR/Rev/467/2012 against dismissal by Additional Collector under

order dated 29-08-2012 of appeal at petitioner's instance

challenging Sub Divisional Officer's order dated 28-02-2011 in file

No. 2010/Appeal/Kawi-628 allowing present respondent no. 2's

application for condonation of delay in preferring appeal against of

certification of mutation entry no. 514 by Tahsildar, Tuljapur in

favour of present petitioner under order/communication dated

03-05-2002 which was given effect to by Naib Tahsildar on

05-07-2004.

3. Perusal of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated

28-11-2011 gives indication that delay was condoned since, before

effecting mutation under entry no. 514 referred to above present

respondent no. 2 had not been given notice and as such he had no

knowledge of such mutation being requested for. Appeal thereform

had been filed by present petitioner, however, the same had been

dismissed by the Additional Collector and revision arising from the

same before the Deputy Commissioner (Ent. Duty) had also failed

under order dated 03-07-2013 referred hereinbefore.

4. Although learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Mr. V. V. Ingle, vehemently submits that delay had been erroneously

condoned by the Sub Divisional Officer, for, according to him,

reasons given for the same and consequently confirmed under order

of dismissal of appeal by Additional Collector and and Deputy

3 WP-4345-14

Commissioner, are not cogent and are untenable yet, looking at that

delay has been condoned in its discretion by the authority of first

instance confirmed at first appellate stage and then revisional

authority. In effect, challenge posed is to delay condonation, in all

the proceedings hitherto and as such decision hitherto may seldom

have efficacy farther than that. Civil proceedings are stated to be

pending between parties. As such, revenue order will cede to

decision thereon. This is not a case wherein it can be said that

discretionary powers of this court are required to be invoked.

5. The matter had been pending since 2014 in this court without

any order.

6. Under the circumstances, petition is not entertained and is

disposed of.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH JUDGE pnd/