1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8362 OF 2009 1] Shoaib Khusro s/o. Abdul Aziz Khusro Age 44 years, Occ. Business, Editor, Aurangabad Times, R/o. Times colony, Aurangabad. 2] Shaker Khusro s/o. Abdul Aziz Khusro Age 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Times Colony, Aurangabad. .. Petitioners Versus 1] Shivajinagar Cooperative Housing Society through its Chairman Mohd. Hussain s/o. Usman Gani Age 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o. House NO. 1-4-413, Rashidpura, Aurangabad. 2] Smt. Ranjana Kesarlal Jasodiya Age major Occ. Household R/o. House NO. 5-18-36, in front of Roxy Cinema Aurangabad. 3] Superintendent of Land Records, Aurangabad. 4] City Survey Officer, Aurangabad. .. Respondent. --- Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.H. Kapadia, Advocate holding for Mr. H.F. Pawar, Advocate for respondent NO.1 Mr. V.M. Kagne, Advocate for respondent No.2. 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 14th December, 2009. PER COURT:- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] The limited grievance raised by the petitioner is that, though the appellate authority vide order dated 4th October, 2008, while remanding the matter to the Superintendent of Land Records, has prima facie observed that there was no reasoning in the order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records impugned before it, as to why the application was allowed at such a belated stage and though on remand a specific prayer has been made to consider the issue of limitation, the Superintendent of Land Records, by the impugned order, has refused to do so. According to Shri Gangapurwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, this amounts to non-exercise of jurisdiction vested with the authority. 3] Shri A.H. Kapadia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the contrary submits that the provisions of limitation Act, would not be applicable to the proceedings before the Superintendent of Land Records, inasmuch as, the proceedings are suo motu proceedings and the jurisdiction can be exercised at any stage. He further submits that since the proceedings are remanded by the DILR, the 3 Superintendent of Land Records had a limited jurisdiction to consider the matter in the parameters laid down by the appellate authority. 4] Prima facie, from the order dated 4th October, 2008, it would reveal that while remanding the matter to the Superintendent of Land Records, the DDLR has, in his conclusions, observed that the Superintendent of Land Records, has not given any reason as to why the appeal of the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was considered after such a prolonged delaly. It has been further observed that under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the Indian Limitation Act, it is permissible to reject the said appeal on the ground of delay and directing parties to approach the civil court. After observing this, in the conclusion part in the operative order, the DDLR, has directed the matter to be reconsidered. 5] An order has to be read in its entirety. The perusal of the order passed by the DDLR would reveal that he had not either way decided anything on the question of limited. However, perusal of the order on the contrary would reveal that, prima facie, he has observed that there was no reasoning given by the Superintendent of Land Records, as to why the application was entertained at such a belated stage. I find that, in this view of the matter, the petitioners were justified in raising a ground regarding the limitation and requesting the authority to adjudicate the issue of limitation, as a preliminary issue. 4 6] Refusal on the part of the Superintendent to consider that issue, therefore, in my view, would amount to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. If a party has raised an issue, the authority is bound to consider the same in accordance in law. 7] In the result, the impugned order dated 31st August, 2009, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent NO.3 for considering it afresh in the light of the directions issued by the DDLR dated 4th October, 2008. It is further directed that the learned respondent No. 3 shall also consider the issue of limitation, as raised by the present petitioners. However, since the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, it is directed that the said would shall be dealt with and considered alongwith the claim of the present respondents. Rule made absolute in above terms, with no orders as to costs. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-