Bombay High Court
Madan Narayan Pawar Through Lrs ... vs The Minister Revenue And Forest ... on 3 September, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:21420
1 926wp1591.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1591 OF 2019
1. Madan s/o Narayan Pawar,
Died through his LR's.
1-A. Dattatraya Madan Pawar,
Age; 51 years, Occ; Agril,
2. Vishnu Narayan Pawar,
Age; 67 years, Occ; Agri,
3. Manisha Dhanraj Pawar,
Age; 32 years, Occ; Agri,
4. Avinash Satish Giri,
Age; 27 years, Occ; Agri,
5. Sunil Bhagwat Pawar,
Age; 38 years, Occ; Agri,
All R/o Wadgaon (Shi.) Tq. Kalam,
District Osmanabad. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The Minister,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Satish Ramrao pawar,
Age; 52 years, Occ; Agri,
3. Sukhdeo Ramrao Pawar,
Age; 47 years, Occ; Agri,
Resp. No. 2 & 3 R/o; Wadgaon (Shi.)
Tq. Kalam, Dist. Osmanabad.
2 926wp1591.19
4. The Deputy Director of Land Records
Aurangabad , Region, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS.
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Shinde Manoj D.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. P.D. Patil
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2024.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the parties.
2. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable
forthwith.
3. By way of this petition the petitioners have raised
challenge to the judgment and order passed by the learned
Minister (Revenue) dated 10.10.2018 in Appeal No.
2016/Pra.Kra.66/J-7A filed by the present respondent Nos. 2
& 3.
4. The learned Minister by way of impugned order has
3 926wp1591.19
quashed and set aside the order passed by the Ld. Dy. Director
of Land Record, Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad confirming
order dated 02.01.2016 passed by the Ld. Superintendent of
Land Record, Osmanabad Dt. 14.09.2015.
5. The proceedings is started by respondents by filing
appeal to DSLR alleging that the Consolidation Scheme that was
implemented in the village Wadgaon (Shi.) Tq. Kalam, District
Osmanabad in the year 1973, the area in their possession is
reduced. Since there was delay of 41 years, he filed an
application for condonation of the same. The DSLR,
Osmanabad, by order dated 14.09.2015 held that the delay
cannot be condoned as the respondents have approached after
41 years. He considered even the reasons stated for condonation
of delay while passing the order.
6. This order came to be challenged before the Deputy
Director of Lands Record. It is the case of the petitioners that
even before the Deputy Director of Land Records it is shown
that no area in possession of respondents is reduced. He has
given the sale instances, whereby the respondents have sold
4 926wp1591.19
their land to other persons by three different sale deeds. There
was also acquisition of his land to the extent of 1H 3R for
percolation tank. He also relied upon the judgments in the case
of Dattu Appa Patil since deceased by Lrs. Ananda Dattu Patil
and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others - 2007 (1)
Mh.L.J. 393.
7. Considering the legal position and the arguments of
the parties, the learned Dy. Director of Land Records dismissed
the appeal holding that the learned DSLR has rightly passed an
order. The respondents thereafter, approached the learned
Minister. The learned Minister considering the merits of the
matter held that an opportunity needs to be given to the
respondent. He therefore, condoned the delay and remanded
the matter back to the authority for consideration of the matter
on merits.
8. It is this order, which is under challenge in this Writ
Petition. The learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently
argued that there is no sufficient cause given for condoning the
delay. He further submitted that there is no power to condone
delay vested with the authorities. The order passed by the
5 926wp1591.19
learned Minister is against the settled position of law. He
pointed out that the petitioners had raised objection by filing
reply. He submits that during the pendency of this Writ
Petition, though, there was stay granted by this Court to the
impugned judgment and order, still the DSLR decided the
matter on merits. He further submits that the respondents have
even approached the Civil Court wherein the application Exh. 5
came to be rejected.
9. The petitioners in view of that subsequently added a
prayer to the petition, seeking quashment of order passed by
the learned DSLR dated 29.06.2022. So far as, the decision of
DSLR dated 29.06.2022 is concerned, he submits that though
there was stay granted by this Court, however, the DSLR
considered the matter on merits. The learned DSLR decided the
matter considering judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation in Misc. Application No. 1577 of 2020 in
Cri. Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013 (SC) dtd. 15.2020.
10. Learned Advocate Mr. Barde, for respondent Nos. 2 &
6 926wp1591.19
3 justified the order stating that the learned Minister has rightly
considered the merit of the matter. When it is pointed out that
while implementing the scheme a fraud is committed, the entire
action stands vitiated. When there is fraud revealed, the length
of delay will not matter. The Limitation Act is not applicable and
therefore, the learned Minister has rightly considered that the
merit in the matter needs to be considered. He submits that the
Minister was convinced with the fact that the scheme is not
properly implemented and therefore it requires re-consideration.
He prays for rejection of the Writ Petition.
11. Learned AGP for Respondent No. 4 adopted the
argument of learned Advocate Mr. Barde for Respondent Nos. 1
& 2. He supports the order passed by the learned Minister.
12. Learned Advocate Mr. Shinde for the petitioners has
relied upon the following judgments :
(a) Gunda Tuka Shinde Since deceased by
his heir Bajirao Tukaram Shinde Vs.
Pandharinath Ramrao Shinde and another -
1991 Mh.L.J. 669
(b) Dattu Appa Patil Since deceased by Lrs
Ananda Dattu Patil and others Vs. State of
7 926wp1591.19
Maharashtra and Others - 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 393,
(c) Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and
Others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and
Others - 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 150,
(d) Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade Vs. Nivrutti
Krishna Bhilare and Others - 2001 (4) Mh. L.J.
31.
13. Gunda Tuka Shinde Since by his Heir Bajirao
Tukaram Shinde (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has
held that delay cannot be condoned. The said judgment is given
in proceedings arising under the provisions of Bombay
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1947.
14. Dattu Appa Patil (Supra), the Division Bench of this
Court decided writ petition also arising under the provisions of
Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1947.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Santoshkumar (supra)
dealing with the provisions of MLRC Code and Section 257of the
said Code, clearly held that when no limitation is provided to
8 926wp1591.19
exercise the revisional powers, the powers should be exercised
within reasonable time. Entertaining the proceedings after
much delay would amount be unsettling the settled position.
16. Gulabrao (supra) the Division Bench of this Court
held that when there is no limitation provided, proceeding
cannot be exercised at any time but must be exercised within a
reasonable time.
17. This Court considered the submissions and
judgments relied upon by the petitioners. Now the law is well
settled that the authorities have no authority to condone delay if
appeal is not filed within a reasonable time, which is taken to be
3 years.
18. Considering all these judgments and reasons stated
therein, the order passed by the learned Minister needs to be
quashed and set aside. Consequently the order passed by the
DSLR dated 29.06.2022 also deserves to be quashed and set
aside since this order is passed pursuant to the order passed by
the learned Minister.
9 926wp1591.19
19. In view of the same, the Writ Petition stands allowed
in terms of prayer Clause (C) & (CC). No order as to the costs.
20. The Writ Petition stands disposed off.
( KISHORE C. SANT )
JUDGE
mahajansb/
