Bombay High Court
Suhas Shriram Bavikar And Another vs Mazharulla Khan Amanulla Khan ... on 10 August, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
1 wp14090-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.14090 OF 2017
1] Dr.Suhas Shriram Bavikar
Age Major, Occu.Medical Practitioner,
R/o Utkarsh Hospital,Samatanagar, .. PETITIONER/
Aurangabad (Orig.respondent No.4)
2] Dr.Mrs.Jayashree Suhas Bavikar
Age Major, Occu.Medical Practitioner,
R/o Utkarsh Hospital,Samatanagar, .. PETITIONER
Aurangabad (Orig.respondent No.5)
VERSUS
1] Mazharulla Khan S/o Amanulla Khan
Age 60 years,Occ : Business
R/o Barudgarnala,Amanat Complex .. RESPONDENT NO.1
Aurangabad through his GPA Holder (Ori.Applicant)
Shaikh Salim Shaikh Shabbir
Age : 32 years, Occ : Business
R/o Plot No.189, Shilpnagar,
Sudhakarnagar Road,
Satara, Aurangabad
2] Deputy Director, Land Records
Aurangabad Division, Damdi Mahal
Beside Panchayat Samiti,Aurangabad
3] District Superintendent,Land Records,
Aurangabad
4] Tahsildar, Aurangabad
5] The Talathi, Satara,
Tq. And Dist.Aurangabad
6] Hasan Yar Khan
S/o Usman Yar Khan,
Age : Major, Occ.Nil,
7] Akbar Yaar Khan
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2021 03:09:25 :::
2 wp14090-17.odt
S/o Usman Yar Khan
deceased through L.Rs.
7.a. Shakera Begum @ Shakila
Begum W/o Akbar Yar Khan
7.b. Roshan Jahan D/o Akbar Yar Khan,
7.c. Israr Yar Khan S/o Akbar Yar Khan,
7.d. Masrat Jahan D/o Akbar Yar Khan,
7.e. Izar Yar Khan S/o Akbar Yar Khan,
7.f. Abrar Yar Khan S/o Akbar Yar Khan,
All Major, R/o Osmanpura,
Aurangabad
8. Jakiya Sultana Hasan Yar Khan,
Age : Major, Occ : Household
R/o Osmanpura, Aurangabad .. RESPONDENTS
...
Shri S.V.Adwant, Advocate for the petitioners
Shri H.I.Pathan, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Shri K.B.Jadhavar,A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 to 5
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL,J.
DATED : 10/08/2021.
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate
Shri Pathan waives service for respondent no. 1 and learned A.G.P.
waives service for respondent nos.2 to 5. With the consent of both the
sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2] The petitioners had purchased an immovable property and
Mutation Entry No.832 was certified in their favour. Respondent no.1
3 wp14090-17.odt
challenged that order by preferring an Appeal under Section 247 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Since there was a delay of more than
26 years, even a request for condonation of delay was made. By the
impugned order the appellate authority has condoned the delay.
3] After having heard the learned advocates of both the sides it
transpires that the learned authority seems to have forgotten that though
he was empowered to exercise a quasi judicial power and the justice not
only ought to have been rendered but it should have been seen to be
rendered has gone ahead and decided to condone the delay apparently,
leaving some loopholes to create a reasonable doubt as to if an
opportunity of being heard was really extended to the petitioners who
were the respondent nos.4 and 5 therein.
4] The reasons for entertaining such a doubt are very many. As can
be seen from the Roznama dated 11/7/2017 marking the presence of
advocate for the respondent no.1 and personal presence of the
respondent no.3, without mentioning as to if any arguments were indeed
heard on the point of condonation of delay, the matter was directed to be
listed for further date for decision on the request for condonation of delay.
The matter subsequently seems to have been taken up on 12/9/2017 and
appeal was directed to be listed on 21/9/2017 for arguments. It transpires
that on 21/9/2017 the arguments of advocate for the respondent no.1
herein were heard. It does not mention if the arguments of the
petitioners herein were also simultaneously heard.
5] As can be seen from the impugned order it seems to have been
pronounced on 28/8/2017, however, no such Roznama of that date can
be found. Though in the initial part it has been specifically mentioned in
the impugned order about having heard the arguments on several dates,
conspicuously there is no reference about any arguments having been
4 wp14090-17.odt
heard on behalf of the petitioners herein, the respondent nos.4 and 5 in
that proceeding. Again in the later portion of the order the authority has
reproduced some portion from the written submission filed on behalf of
the petitioners.
6] All these circumstances certainly give rise to a reasonable doubt
as to if the request for condonation of delay made by the respondent no.1
herein was really considered and decided judiciously.
7] It is in view of such peculiar facts and circumstances, in my
considered view it would be appropriate to relegate the parties before the
appellate authority with a direction to the latter to hear the parties and
decide the request for condonation of delay afresh.
8] The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and
set aside. The parties shall appear before the appellate authority on
18/08/2021 who shall now extend an opportunity to all interested to
address it on the point of condonation of delay and decide the issue
afresh. There shall be no need for it to issue notices to anybody.
9] Couple of Applications have been filed by few persons to intervene
in the Writ Petition. Those are disposed of without expressing anything
about their rights.
10] It is made clear that nothing is expressed as to the merits of the
case. The decision shall be taken within a period of 2 months.
11] The Rule is made absolute.
(MANGESH S. PATIL,J.)
umg/
