Bombay High Court
Ramesh Lakshman Ramdasi And Ors vs Additional Divisional ... on 10 March, 2023
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
19-WP1099-2022.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SANTOSH
SUBHASH WRIT PETITION NO. 1099 OF 2022
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
1 Ramesh Lakshman Ramdasi
Date: 2023.03.13
17:24:38 +0530 Age : 48 years, Indian inhabitant, residing
at : Kevighar, Mali Galli, Patange Vadi, 61/
A/3, Barshi Solapur.
2 Arun Lakshman Ramdasi
An adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at :
Kevighar, Mali Galli, Patange Vadi,
61/A/3, Barshi Solapur.
3 Sunil Lakshman Ramdasi
An adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at :
Kevighar, Mali Galli, Patange Vadi,
61/A/3, Barshi Solapur.
4 Vaibhav Ashok Ramdasi
An adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at :
99 Plot No.5, Ujjvalkunj Dhayri, Haveli,
Pune.
5 Vivek Ashok Ramdasi
An adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at :
99 Plot No.5, Ujjvalkunj Dhayri, Haveli,
Pune.
6 Vaishali Ravindra Upasani
An adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at :
99 Plot No.5, Ujjvalkunj Dhayri, Haveli,
Pune. ...Petitioners
Versus
1 Additional Divisional Commissioner
Pune Division, Pune
2 Suman Bharath Gosavi
An adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at :
Shriharinagar, Malinagar, Malshiras,
Solapur.
3 Nithin Bharath Gosavi
An adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at :
Shriharinagar, Malinagar, Malshiras,
Solapur.
1/6
19-WP1099-2022.DOC
4 Purushottam Ramkrishna Gosavi
An adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at :
144, Kasba Peth, Pune.
5 Madhav Ramkrishna Gosavi
An adult, Indian inhabitant, residing at :
144, Kasba Peth, Pune. ...Respondents
Mr. P. B. Shah, a/w Ms. Gunjan Shah, i/b Kayval P. Shah, for
the Petitioners.
Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for the State/Respondent No.1
Ms. Manisha Devkar, for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED : 10th MARCH, 2023
JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the
consent of the Counsels for the parties heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assails the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune
Division, Pune, in RTS Appeal No.357 of 2019 on 23 rd August,
2021, whereby the Divisional Commissioner condoned delay in
filing appeal.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts can be
stated as under:
The petitioners claim that they are the holders of
agricultural land bearing Survey Number 430/1 admeasuring
13 Acres, situated at village Mhalung, Taluka Malshiras, District
Solapur ("the suit land"). The suit land was in the possession
2/6
19-WP1099-2022.DOC
of the Maharashtra State Agricultural Corporation. Vide an
order dated 29th July, 2013, the Committee headed by the then
Sub-Divisional Officer, Madha Sub-Division, Kurduwadi, allotted
the suit land to the petitioners as the legal representatives of
Lakshman Ramdasi. Respondent Nos.2 to 3, who claim to be
the legal representatives of Bharath Gosavi (Ramdasi) and
respondent Nos.4 and 5, who claim to be the legal
representatives of Ramkrishna Gosavi (Ramdasi), professed to
file an appeal against the said order. An application for
condonation of delay of 6 years, 1 month and 7 days in
preferring the said appeal was also filed. By the impugned
order, the Divisional Commissioner condoned the delay opining,
inter alia, that there was delay of about five months only from
the order impugned before him dated 16th January, 2019.
4. Being aggrieved the petitioners have invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, would
urge that the patent error in the impugned order was noted by
this Court on the very first day when the matter was listed
before the Court. This Court, inter alia, observed that ex facie
it appeared that respondent Nos.2 to 5 had preferred the said
appeal along with an application for condonation of delay
3/6
19-WP1099-2022.DOC
aggrieved by order of the Committee dated 29 th July, 2013 and
the Divisional Commissioner proceeded on the premise that the
impugned order was passed on 16 th January, 2019. In a
subsequent order dated 10th February, 2019, upon perusal of
the original file tendered by the learned AGP, this Court further
recorded that the said order dated 16th January, 2019 referred to
by the Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order
pertained to a totally different matter. Thus, the Court stayed
the impugned order.
6. Ms. Devkar, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to
5, attempted to salvage the position by inviting the attention of
the Court to the proceedings initiated by the respondents
assailing the order of allotment of the suit land dated 29 th July,
2013. It was submitted that, by an order dated 14 th September,
2016 in the complaint Application No.SR/47/2012, the head of
the Committee and Sub-Divisional Officer, Malshiras, Sub-
Division Akluj, rejected the complaint application advising
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate appropriate proceedings
before the appropriate forum against the decision of the
Committee. The said decision was further challenged by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in 2nd RTS Appeal No.580 of 2017 before
the Additional Collector, Solapur. By an order dated 16th
4/6
19-WP1099-2022.DOC
January, 2019, the Additional Collector dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akluj,
in RTS Complaint No.104/2016 dated 16 th November, 2016. An
endeavour was thus made to demonstrate that the respondents
have all along being pursuing the remedies in respect of the
order of allotment dated 29th July, 2013.
7. The aforesaid submission, even if taken at par, is of no
assistance to respondent Nos.2 to 5. From the perusal of the
copy of RTS Appeal No.357 of 2019, it becomes evident that
what respondent Nos.2 to 5 assailed was the order of allotment
passed by the Committee on 29th July, 2013. Had the Divisional
Commissioner condoned the delay by ascribing the reasons that
the delay of 6 years, 1 month and 7 days occurred on account of
the fact that respondent Nos.2 to 5 were prosecuting the
remedies before wrong forums, different consideration would
have come into play. Instead, the Divisional Commissioner
proceeded on the premise that there was delay of about five
months. Thus, the discretion to condone the delay was
exercised on a completely erroneous premise.
8. In the circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the application for condonation of
5/6
19-WP1099-2022.DOC
delay is required to be remitted for afresh determination in
accordance with law.
9. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 23rd August, 2021 passed
by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, in RTS
Appeal No.357 of 2019 stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) Application for condonation of delay stands restored
to the file of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune.
(iv) The Divisional Commissioner is requested to decide
the application afresh after providing an opportunity
of hearing to the parties and in accordance with law.
(v) All contentions are kept open for consideration.
Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
No order as to costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
