1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4529 OF 2008 Shankar S/o Balwant Vanjarkhedkar Age : 78 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Morge, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. ..Petitioner V/s 1. Sitaram S/o Soma Jadhav Age : 85 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Morge, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. Through Power of Attorney Narayan S/o Harishachandra Rathod Age : 47 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Morge, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. 2. Harishchandra S/o Tola Rathod Age : 80 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Morge, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist.Beed Through Power of Attorney Narayan S/o Harishachandra Rathod Age : 47 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Morge, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. 3. Ramchandra S/o Balwant Vanjarkhedkar Deceased Through his L.Rs. 3A. Satish S/o Ramchandra Vanjarkhedkar R/o Morge, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ..Respondents ... Mr.A.D. Sugdare, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.H.V. Patil, Advocate for respondents. ... 2 (CORAM : R.M.BORDE,J.) DATE : 10th December, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri.A.D. Sugdare, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Shri.H.V. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. 3. By consent of parties, the matter taken up for final disposal, at the stage of admission. 4. The petitioner herein is challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad dated 15.05.2008, thereby rejecting application tendered by the appellant, seeking condonation of delay in presenting appeal. The petitioner herein presented appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad raising exception to the orders passed by the Superintendent of Land Records, Beed. It transpired that the Superintendent of Land Records decided the matter on 04.06.1998, whereas appeal came to be presented before the Appellate Authority on 21.10.2003. There appears 3 to be delay of 5 years, 1 month and 16 days. The Appellate Authority found that the delay occurred in approaching the Appellate Authority, has not been properly explained by the appellant, as such the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. 5. It is contention of the appellant-petitioner herein that he has not been informed about the decision of Superintendent of Land Records, dated 04.06.1998. The said communication alleged to have been transmitted to the appellant, after rendering the decision of the Appellate Authority, has not been received by him. It is the contention of the appellant-petitioner herein that after getting knowledge in respect of the said order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records, he presented the appeal without causing any unnecessary delay. The grounds raised by appellant did not find favour with the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad. It is the contention of the petitioner that in fact the communication dated 04.06.1998 has not been transmitted by the office. The petitioner sought information from the office of the Superintendent of 4 Land Records in respect of transmission of communication and record in that regard. He has been informed by the Information Officer from the office of Superintendent of Land Records that such communication has not been in fact issued. It was further informed that there is no entry recorded in office record in respect of transmission of the communication. The information was received by the petitioner from the Information Officer, under provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The stand taken by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority has been strengthened by the communication received by him from the information officer on 09.11.2009. 6. The Counsel appearing for the respondent controverted the contentions raised by the petitioner, and seeks time to ascertain about correctness of communication received by the petitioner from the concerned Officer, under Right to Information Act, 2005. I am of the opinion that for purpose of consideration of claim of applicant for condonation of delay, reasons set out by him, appear to be proper and just. Always there shall be endeavor as far as 5 possible to secure decision on merit. In my opinion, considering the reasons set out in the petition, the order passed by the Appellate Authority does not appear to be just and proper and as such needs to be set aside. 7. The Counsel appearing for the respondents raised objection as regards the maintainability of writ petition, contending that there is alternate revisional remedy available to the petitioner under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It is to be noted that availability of revisional remedy is no bar in entertaining the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, there is no absolute bar in entertaining the Writ Petition and invocation of supervisory jurisdiction invested with the High Court. The learned Counsel further seeks leave to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh V/s National Insurance Co.Ltd. And another reported in (2003)3 SCC 524. I have perused the said Judgment. The Apex Court, in reported matter in view of the availability of appellate remedy 6 provided under the Statute held that, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not permissible. In the instant case, the Statute does not provide any appellate remedy. The facts giving rise to dispute in reported judgment are different than the facts arising in the instant matter. 8. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petition needs to be disposed of by issuing directions to the appellate authority to deal with appeal and decide the same, after extending opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in accordance with law and on its own merit. The order passed by the Deputy Director, Land Records, Aurangabad dated 15.05.2008, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside and same is accordingly set aside. The concerned Authority is directed to hear the appeal on its own merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE GAS/wp4529.08