1 Wp1288.91 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1288 OF 1991 Laxmibai Krishna Thorat. .. Petitioner Vs Yedu Pandurang Nagawade, since deceased through, Smt. Jaibai Kisanrao Nagawade & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri P.K. Hushing for the Petitioner. Shri Sagar Joshi i/by Shri S.M. Oak for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. The challenge is to the orders passed by the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it will be necessary to advert to the facts of the case. The proceedings under Section 32-G of the said Act were initiated in respect of the lands bearing Survey No. 204, 47/2, 82/1 2 Wp1288.91 and 191/1 situate at Village Pimpalgaon, Taluka – Daund. In the said proceedings, the original Respondent herein was shown as the tenant- purchaser. The deceased husband of the Petitioner was shown as one of the three landlords along with Smt. Babai Bhagwant Natu and One Babu Laxman Khopade. By an order dated 29th August, 1961, purchase price was fixed by the learned Agricultural Lands Tribunal. An appeal was preferred by the present Petitioner against the said order. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. A revision application was preferred by the Petitioner which has been dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner and her deceased husband are concerned only with one of the land bearing Survey No.47/2. He submitted that the contention raised before the Appellate Court by the Petitioner was that the notice of the proceedings under Section 32-G of the said Act was not served to the Petitioner’s husband. He submitted that though the Petitioner’s husband was never served with the notice of the proceedings, the observation of the learned Agricultural Lands Tribunal is that the Petitioner’s husband had no objection for fixing the price. He submitted that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the other landlords preferred an appeal against the order of A.L.T. concerning other lands and the said appeal has been dismissed. He submitted that the question of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal was also not examined by the Appellate Court in the 3 Wp1288.91 context of the contention of the Petitioner that her husband was never served with the notice of the proceedings for fixation of price. He submitted that instead of sending the matter back to the Appellate Court, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a limited revisional jurisdiction has gone into the question of facts. He submitted that the entire approach of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is erroneous. The learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned order. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not reflected from the judgment of both the Appellate Court and the Revisional Authority that any earlier appeal was preferred by the Petitioner’s husband against the order of the ALT fixing the price. The appeal appears to have been preferred by the other landlords in respect of the other lands with which the present Petitioner has admittedly no concern. It is not the finding of the Appellate Court that either the Petitioner’s husband or the Petitioner herself had preferred an appeal. Therefore, the Appellate Court could not have dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner only on the ground that another landlord had preferred an appeal against the order of the learned ALT. The Appellate Court itself has noted the contention of the Petitioner in the appeal that the Petitioner’s husband was not served with the notice of inquiry under Section 32-G of the said Act. In fact, the judgment noted that a request for condonation of delay was made. However, without recording a finding whether the Petitioner’s husband was served with the notice and whether the Petitioner’s husband or the 4 Wp1288.91 Petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings under Section 32G, the Appellate Court has observed that the appeal was barred by law of limitation. 5. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has not considered the case of the Petitioner that her husband was not served with the notice of the proceedings before the A.L.T. In Paragraph 12 of the judgment, the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal noted that the Petitioner was not diligent and the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time of limitation. 6. Perusal of the judgments of the Appellate Court as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shows that the main contention that the Petitioner’s husband was not served with the notice of the proceeding has not been adverted to. The Appellate Court has not dismissed the appeal on merits. The first ground on which the appeal was dismissed is that another landlord had preferred an appeal. This reason is completely irrelevant inasmuch as the Petitioner or her husband had admittedly no concern in respect of the land claimed by the other landlord. The second ground on which the appeal is dismissed is that it was barred by limitation. However, the Appellate court has not recorded any finding on the prayer made by the Petitioner for condonation of delay in the context of the specific contention that the Petitioner’s husband was not aware of the proceedings and that the Petitioner’s husband was not served with the notice of the proceedings 5 Wp1288.91 before the A.L.T. There is no specific finding recorded by the Appellate Court that the Petitioner’s husband was served with the notice of the proceedings under Section 32-G. Thus, neither the Appellate Court nor the Revenue Tribunal has considered the case of the Petitioner on merits. 7. Hence, the Petition is disposed of by passing the following order. (a) The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority on 9th May, 1988 and the Revisional Authority on 23rd July, 1990 are quashed and set aside. (b) Tenancy Appeal No.8 of 1985 is restored to the file of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, Baramati, Mumbai. (c) After issuing notice to the parties, the Appellate Authority will consider the prayer for condonation of delay made by the Petitioner on merits. (d) If the Appellate Authority condones the delay, in the light of the observations made in the judgment, the appeal will be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 6 Wp1288.91 (e) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (f) Rule is partly made absolute with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)