Bombay High Court
Shobha Vasant Bhoir vs The Police Commissioner And Ors on 24 September, 2025
Author: N.J.Jamadar
Bench: N.J.Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:41011
911 wp 10924 of 2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10924 OF 2025
Shobha Vasant Bhoir and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
The Police Commissioner and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Girish Agarwal with Mr. Shubham Jangam, Mr. Karan Singh Chawla, for
Petitioners.
Mrs. Savina Crasto, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 24 SEPTEMBER 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
3. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 17 July 2025, passed
by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in an application being No.2 of 2025,
preferred to condone the delay in preferring Revision under Section 24 of the
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, whereby the
Settlement Commissioner has condoned the delay of about six years in
entertaining the Revision Application and, by the very same order, stayed the
execution, operation and implementation of the Sanad (Conveyance)
No.SDO/Plot/C-4/CDR-233/2019 granted in favour of the Petitioners, on 16
March 2019.
911 wp 10924 of 2025.doc
4. The property of the Petitioners was acquired by the State Government
for the purpose of the Police Department. The Petitioners claimed relief
under the said Act, 1954. Pursuant to the order passed by the Revisional
authority, a conveyance came to be executed in favour of the Petitioners on
16 March 2019. The Petitioners paid a sum of Rs.10,71,678/- towards the
consideration.
5. Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) - Managing Officer,
Ulhasnagar, issued a Corrigendum dated 4 June 2019, followed by a Deed of
Conveyance dated 6 August 2019 in favour of Respondent No.1. The very
same property was professed to be conveyed in favour of Respondent No.1
under the Conveyance dated 6 August 2019.
6. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred WP No.9818 of 2019. By a
judgment and order dated 12 December 2024, a Division Bench of this Court
was persuaded to quash and set aside the Corrigendum dated 4 June 2019,
and the Conveyance dated 6 August 2019 and restore the Conveyance deed
in favour of the Petitioners dated 16 March 2019, whereby the Petitioners
were allotted land admeasuring 1453.3/9 sq.yards. The Division Bench,
however, clarified that the Respondents were not thereby precluded from
taking an appropriate action, as is permissible in law, about the allotment and
conveyance in favour of the Petitioners.
7. Availing the aforesaid liberty, Respondent No.1 filed a Revision
911 wp 10924 of 2025.doc
Application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of
the Act, 1954. As there was a delay in filing the said Revision, an application
for condonation of delay came to be filed. By the impugned order, the
Respondent No.2 allowed the application for condonation of delay and,
simultaneously, granted stay to the execution, operation and implementation
of the Conveyance in favour of the Petitioners.
8. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have again invoked the writ
jurisdiction.
9. Mr. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the
impugned order suffers from manifest error in law. Firstly, the Chief
Settlement Commissioner has not ascribed any reason as to why the delay in
preferring the revision deserved to be condoned. In fact, the Chief Settlement
Commissioner has not examined the genuineness of the reasons and the
sufficiency of cause ascribed for the delay in preferring the revision. On the
contrary, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has condoned the delay
adverting to the merits of the matter.
10. Secondly, the Chief Settlement Commissioner was in error in granting
stay to the execution, operation and implementation of the Conveyance in
favour of the Petitioners, when the proceedings before the Chief Settlement
Commissioner were only to determine as to whether the delay was required to
be condoned or not. If the Chief Settlement Commissioner was inclined to
911 wp 10924 of 2025.doc
consider the prayer to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the
conveyance granted in favour of the Petitioners, the proper course would
have been to condone the delay and provide an opportunity of hearing to the
Petitioners on the substance of the matter. Therefore, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
11. To lend support to these submissions, Mr. Agarwal placed reliance on a
recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of H. Guruswamy
and Ors. V/s. A. Krishnaiah (deceased) and Ors. 1 wherein the Supreme
Court enunciated that, while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the
Court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The Court owes a
duty to first ascertain the bona fide of the explanation offered by the party
seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant
and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced, the Court may bring
into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
12. In opposition to this, Ms. Crasto, the learned AGP, submitted that by the
impugned order, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has merely condoned
the delay. The Petitioners will have an efficacious opportunity to contest the
revision application on merits. It was submitted that, having regard to the
exigency of the situation, which arose on account of two conveyance deeds
having been executed in respect of one and the same property, the Chief
1 2025(1) Apex Court Judgments 432 (SC)
911 wp 10924 of 2025.doc
Settlement Commissioner considered it expedient to stay the execution,
operation and implementation of the conveyance granted in favour of the
Petitioners. The said order, according to Ms. Crasto, does not warrant
interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
13. I have carefully perused the material on record and given anxious
consideration to the submissions canvassed across the bar. To begin with, it
is necessary to note that, by a judgment and order dated 12 December 2024
in WP No.9818 of 2019, the Division Bench has already quashed and set
aside the Corrigendum dated 4 June 2019 and the Conveyance dated 6
August 2019. In this view of the matter, the very premise on which the Chief
Settlement Commissioner has proceeded, namely, that there are two
conveyances in respect of one and the same property was flawed. By the
said judgment and order, the Division Bench has granted liberty to the
Respondents to take recourse to the remedy as available in law with regard to
the deed of conveyance in favour of the Petitioners. However, the said liberty
does not imply that the deed of conveyance in favour of the Respondent No.1,
which has been quashed and set aside, can be resurrected and considered to
be in existence.
14. The Court is conscious of the fact that, the challenge in this Petition is
to an order condoning the delay in preferring the revision. Ordinarily, where
the Court or tribunal below exercises discretion to condone the delay, the
911 wp 10924 of 2025.doc
appellate or supervisory court is not expected to lightly interfere with the
exercise of the discretion to condone the delay, as it is an act of positive
exercise of discretion. On the contrary, if the court below has declined to
condone the delay, the appellate or supervisory court can independently
consider the aspect of condonation of delay, as the entire matter is open for
evaluation. The appellate or supervisory court would interfere with the
positive exercise of discretion to condone the delay only when the order is
perverse or delay has been condoned without examining the justifiability of
the reasons for the condonation of delay.
15. On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the case, this
Court finds that the impugned order singularly lacks consideration on the
genuineness and bonafide of the reasons ascribed by the Respondent No.1
for the condonation of delay in preferring the revision. The Chief Settlement
Commissioner has simply narrated the facts and submissions and noted that
the two conveyances were executed in respect of one and the same property,
and, thereafter, by a single line, ruled that the delay is condoned. No reason
has been ascribed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as regards the
justifiability of the reason or sufficiency of the cause ascribed by the
Respondent No.1 for the delay of about six years in preferring the revision.
16. The submission of Mr.Agarwal that, the Chief Settlement Commissioner
gave undue weight to the merits of the matter and that vitiated the
911 wp 10924 of 2025.doc
consideration on the aspect of condonation of delay appears well merited. As
noted above, the Supreme Court in the case of H. Guruswamy and Ors.
(supra), has cautioned against adverting to the merits of the main matter
while considering the application for condonation of delay. The merits of the
main matter can be gone into if, on balance, the Court finds that the applicant
has made out a sufficient cause and the opposition thereto is equally sturdy.
17. The impugned order, thus, suffers from the vice of solely adverting to
the merits of the matter and ignoring the sufficiency of the cause and the
bonafide of the Respondent No.1 in seeking condonation of delay in filing
revision application.
18. Resultantly, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Writ
Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the application for condonation
of delay is required to be remitted back to the Chief Settlement Commissioner
for afresh decision in accordance with law.
19. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 17 July 2025 stands quashed and set
aside.
(ii) The application for condonation of delay in preferring Revision
stands remitted back to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for afresh
decision in accordance with law.
911 wp 10924 of 2025.doc
(iii) The Chief Settlement Commissioner is requested to hear and
decide the said Revision Application as expeditiously as possible and keeping
in view the principles which govern the determination of an application for
condonation of delay.
(iv) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/09/2025 18:50:01
