1 WP 6481.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6481 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. J.S.Gavane, Advocate for the Petitioner. ............................... CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :29/08/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. J.S.Gavane, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present respondent no. 4 had filed Revision before the Additional Commissioner challenging the order dated 18/10/2010. There was delay of 62 days in filing the said Revision. The Additional Commissioner condoned the said delay. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Mr. Gavane, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 WP 6481.2011 submits that in fact the order is passed by the Collector, Osmanabad on 11/02/2008 and the said order is sought to be assailed before the Commissioner. There is delay of more than 2 years and 8 months. Vide order dated 18/05/2010, the Collector, Osmanabad has only corrected the Survey number. As such, in effect, the challenge would be to the original order. In such circumstances, the delay caused would be more than 2 years and 8 months and no explanation is given for the same. Even the respondent no. 4 had obtained the certified copy of the order dated 11/02/2008 on 03/06/2008. As such, the said order was well within the knowledge. No explanation is given for not challenging the said order for such a long time. In view of the above, the learned counsel contends that the order is erroneous. 4. The Order dated 11/02/2008 stood modified vide Order dated 18/05/2010 and in fact the earlier order dated 11/02/2008 is merged with the subsequent order dated 18/05/2010 and the limitation would be counted from the date of the modified order. In light of that, the delay was of only 62 days. The additional Commissioner has considered the said fact that the delay is not intentional one and sufficient grounds are stated for the said delay which was caused. 5. In light of the above, I do not see any error of jurisdiction on the part of the authority. 3 WP 6481.2011 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with aforesaid observations. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6481.2011