Bombay High Court
Nathasaheb Baburao Karale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 14 January, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
WP-7353-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7353 OF 2020
Nathasaheb Baburao Karale ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and Others ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.P. Tiwari, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 5
Mr. A.K. Gawali, Advocate for respondent nos.6A to 6E
....
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATED : 14th JANUARY, 2021
PER COURT :
Heard.
2. Impugned in this writ petition is order dated 04th September, 2019
passed by the learned Minister for State (Revenue) in Revision Application
No. R.T.S. -3119/1802/Pra.Kra.67/J-6. By the impugned order, the revision
application preferred by Respondent Nos. 6A to 6E came to be allowed with a
direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar ('S.D.O.') to decide
R.T.S. Appeal No. 47 of 2013 on its merits.
3. Few facts necessary to decide this writ petition are as follows :-
1 / 5
WP-7353-20.odt
The Tahsildar, Ahmednagar by his order dated 01 st July, 2006
directed the name of present petitioner to be recorded in cultivation column
to the extent of 56 Are in the land Gut No. 75. Said order is stated to have
been passed after considering factum of possession of the petitioner.
Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 6A to 6E filed R.T.S. Appeal No. 47 of 2013
against the decision of Tahsildar, Ahmednagar dated 01 st July, 2006 before
the S.D.O. Since there is delay in preferring the application, an application
for condonation of delay was filed therewith. The petitioner appeared in the
said proceeding and contested the application for condonation of delay. The
S.D.O., vide his order dated 31st December, 2014, dismissed the application
for delay. The respondents, after about little over one year, preferred R.T.S.
Appeal No. 182 of 2016 to the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar. The
Additional Collector, in turn, vide order dated 17th November, 2016
dismissed the appeal. The contesting respondents thereafter preferred
Revision Application No. 111 of 2017 before the Additional Commissioner,
Nashik. On 14th September, 2017, the Additional Commissioner dismissed
the revision application. The concerned respondents, therefore, preferred
revision there against to the learned Minister for State (Revenue). The
learned Minister was pleased to allow the revision application vide order
dated 04th September, 2019 with directions to the S.D.O. as stated above.
2 / 5
WP-7353-20.odt
4. Mr. Gaware, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
all the authorities below, except learned Minister, have rightly passed orders
refusing to condone the delay occurred in preferring appeal against the
decision of the Tahsildar dated 01st July, 2006. There was delay of little over
seven years. The same had not been explained. Moreover, there was delay
of little over one year in preferring appeal to the Additional Collector against
the order passed by the S.D.O. The concerned respondents had, in fact, slept
over their rights. Learned counsel took me through the facts of the case.
Those facts need not be adverted to since the only question that
arises before this Court as to whether the learned Minister was justified in
condoning the delay.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on judgment of
Apex Court in Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 2013
DGLS (SC) 672. According to learned counsel, in case a party found to be
negligent or for want of bonafides on his part or found to have not acted
diligently, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. Learned
counsel ultimately urged for setting aside the impugned order.
6. Mr. Gawali, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.6(A) to 6(E)
would, on the other hand, submit that the Tahsildar, Ahmednagar had passed
order against a dead person. The order is, therefore, non est in the eyes of
3 / 5
WP-7353-20.odt
law. The proceeding before the Tahsildar was initiated by the petitioner by
giving wrong name of deceased Respondent No.6 and his incorrect address.
Learned counsel took me through Rule 31 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Record of Rights and Registers (Preparation and Maintenance) Rules, 1971.
Learned counsel would further submit that since the impugned order was a
nullity, the question of limitation in challenging the same would be of no
consequence. He, therefore, urged for dismissal of the petition.
7. A copy of the application for condonation of delay preferred along
with the appeal memo in R.T.S. No. 47 of 2013 is on record. It has been
averred in the said application that the petitioner herein had preferred crop
inspection (ihd ikg.kh) case against original Respondent No.6. In the said
proceeding, the surname of Respondent No.6 was given as Shaikh instead of
Rajkotwala and his address was shown at village Burhannagar. When the
said proceeding was initiated, original Respondent No.6 - Iqubal Rajkotwala
was not alive. His legal representatives (Respondent Nos. 6A to 6E) were not
parties before the Tahsildar, Ahmednagar in the said proceeding. As such,
the crop inspection case was conducted against a dead person. It has also
been averred in the said application that the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit
No. 894 of 2012 against Respondent Nos. 6A to 6E. On inspection of
documents in the said suit, it was realised that the crop inspection case was
conducted against a dead person.
4 / 5
WP-7353-20.odt
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not traverse the aforesaid
facts. As such, it prima facie appears that the crop inspection case was
conducted against a dead person. The decision given therein may, therefore,
be non est in the eyes of law. It is only after having come to know about the
said fact, the respondents preferred appeal to the S.D.O. It appears that the
S.D.O. did not consider the averments in the delay condonation application.
9. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned Minister was justified in
allowing the revision application. No interference therewith is therefore
called for. Writ Petition, therefore, fails. Same is dismissed.
( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )
SSD
5 / 5
