Bombay High Court
Shankar S/O Vishwanath Raghtate ... vs Honble Minister, Revenue, Relief ... on 11 October, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
Judgment 1 wp933.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 933/2018
1] Shankar S/o Vishwanath Raghtate,
Aged about 83 years, Occ. Cultivation
2] Shamrao S/o Vishwanath Raghatate,
Aged about 81 years, Occ. Cultivation
3] Nikhil S/o Mahadeo Raghatate,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Cultivation
4] Leena D/o Mahadeo Raghatate,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Cultivation
Original Respondent nos. 2 to 5
5] Tulshiram S/o Vishwanath Raghatate,
Aged about 77 years, Occ. Cultivation
All residents of Jatpura, Ward No. 1,
Chandrapur, Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur
.... PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
1] Hon'ble Minister,
Revenue, Relief and
Rehabilitation & Public Works
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
2] Deputy Director of Land Records,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001
ANSARI
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 03:07:39 :::
Judgment 2 wp933.18.odt
3] Smt. Vandana Suhas Sakle,
Aged about 59 years, Occ. Service,
Resident of Bokare Plot,
Ramnagar, Chandrapur
Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur
4] Smt. Aarti W/o Bharat Waghide,
Aged about 54 years, Occ. Household
Resident of Near Gurudwara, Tukum,
Chandrapur, Tq. & District Chandrapur
5] Shri Sunil Bhayyaji Nasre,
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business
Resident of House of Chafle,
Near APMC Square, Ramnagar,
Chandrapur, Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 - Original Appellants
.... RESPONDENT(S)
*******************************************************************
Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. R.D. Dhande, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 to 5
*******************************************************************
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
OCTOBER 11, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] Heard Mr. Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Ms. T.H. Khan, learned AGP for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and
Mr. Dhande, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5.
ANSARI
Judgment 3 wp933.18.odt
2] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.
3] The grievance is raised by learned counsel for the petitioners
is that the revision filed before the respondent no. 1, by the respondent
nos. 3 to 5, was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay,
in which it was stated that a delay of 6 years, 8 months & 23 days had
occasioned in the filing of the revision. It is contended that without
deciding the application for condonation of delay, the revision has been
decided.
4] Mr. Dhande, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5
submits, that there was no delay whatsoever, in filing of the revision, as it
was filed within the statutory period of limitation provided for filing a
revision. Upon being called to point out as to whether the application for
condonation of delay, filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 was withdrawn
or not pressed or for that matter, whether notices were not issued on the
said application and only on the revision petition, Mr. Dhande, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 is unable to point out.
ANSARI
Judgment 4 wp933.18.odt
5] It is a trite position of law that when a revision is filed along
with an application for condonation of delay, before the respondent no. 1,
the procedure would require that the delay application should first be
decided, whereupon depending upon the fate of the delay application,
the revision could be registered, in case, the delay is condoned. In case, a
notice is issued on both the applications simultaneously, the record
should so indicate. In the instant matter, though a preliminary objection
has been raised by Mr. Dhande, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3
to 5 that there was no delay whatsoever, it equally remains a fact that the
application for condonation of delay filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 is
still on record, without any orders being passed thereupon of any nature
whatsoever. Mr. Dhande, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5
has been unable to point out any order of any nature whatsoever, on the
application for condonation of delay, whether it was filed, not pressed,
withdrawn, or notice was issued thereupon. He also is unable to point out
whether the notice served upon the petitioner was a notice on the
application for codonation of delay or on the revision. Neither copies of
the order sheets of the proceedings before the respondent no. 1 have
been placed on record so that the position could have been ascertained
ANSARI
Judgment 5 wp933.18.odt
therefrom. The course, therefore adopted, by the respondent no. 1, in
directly deciding the revision, without passing any orders on the
application even of the nature, that there was no delay and therefore and
the same could have been filed, clearly contemplates a procedure which is
alien to law.
6] In that view of the matter, entertaining of the revision on
merits in such a fashion is clearly not permissible. The impugned order
therefore is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
respondent no. 1, to first decide the application for condonation of delay
in any way whatsoever and thereupon to decide the revision on merits.
7] Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(JUDGE)
ANSARI
