1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.3635/2008 (Chandulal Tembhare & others ..V/s.. Tahsildar Amgaon & others) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.D. Najbile, counsel for petitioner. Mr. Ahirkar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. CORAM:- A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED:- 11 th AUGUST, 2009. 1. Heard Mr. Najbile, counsel for petitioner and Mr. Ahirkar, learned A.G.P. for the respondent no.1. None appears for other respondents. 2. An order made by M.R.T., Nagpur rejecting the application for condoning the delay of over 21 years in filing appeal against an order made by Tahsildar dated 22/10/1980 in the matter of restoration of land the present writ petition has been filed. In support of writ petition Mr. Najbile, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the finding has been recorded by M.R.T. that appellant no.2 in the appeal before M.R.T. was served with notice, fact remains that there are four 2 appellants who are the owners of suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 3/4/1969 and therefore notice of restoration proceedings to one of them would not be according to law. He therefore, submits that petitioner had no knowledge about passing of the order of restoration made by Tahsildar. Not only that when in the year 2001 application was made for grant of certified copy of said order dated 22/8/1980 the certified copy of the order of Tahsildar has not been furnished till this date and that is why there is delay from 2001 onwards which deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. He further argued that Tribunal committed an error in insisting for medical certificate in respect of illness of one of the petitioner. He then argued that the date of knowledge will be relevant for determining whether there was a delay in filing appeal or not. In support of his submissions he relied on the following judgments - (a) AIR 1988 Supreme Court 897 ( G. Ramegowda, Major etc., V/s. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bnagalore) (b) 1969-SCR-1-1006, 1969-AIR-(SC)-0-575 (Shakuntala Devi V/s. Kuntal Kumari) (c) 2002 (2) Mh.L.J. 938 (Mukesh Chandandas Harvani V/s. Pramilabai Wd/o Ramesh Sangole 3 and others) (d) (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 176 (M.K. Prasad V/s. P. Arumugam) 3. Per contra, Mr. Ahirkar, learned A.G.P. contested the writ petition and supported the impugned order inviting my attention to the reasons furnished by the Tribunal. 4. I have heard learned Advocates for the rival parties, I have also gone through the impugned orders and considered the submissions made by the rival counsel. 5. It will be useful to quote paragraph 9 from the order made by the Tribunal in stead of repeating the facts which are obtainable from record. “the contention of the appellants that they came to know about the impugned order on 25/6/01 appears totally false and are contrary to the record of Tahsildar. The most material circumstance falsifying the contention of the appellants is that the record shows that on 8/4/1981, the appellant No.2 had received the notice dt.14/3/1980 form Tahsildar for handing over the possession of land to respondent in pursuance of order of 4 restoration of land to Tribal Ramdas. It shows that appellant no.2 and others were well aware of impugned order on 8/4/981 itself. It appears that they did not feel need to file appeal against impugned order and hence did not take necessary steps to file appeal. Further, it is seen form record of Tahsildar that on 19/7/85 he started proceedings for occupancy price of land after passing impugned order. The roznama of Tahsildar shows that Chandulal Tembhare was present before him on 9/10/85, 9/12/85, 3/1/86 and he has signed these roznamas. Still the appellants did not file appeal. If really they wanted to challenge impugned order, they would have filed application for certified copy in the year 1980, 1985 itself. But it appears that they slept over the matter from 1980 onwards and suddenly woke up in the year 2001 and have raised false pleas. This conduct of appellants shows that they were utterly negligent, utterly careless and inactive in taking steps for filing the appeal. Therefore, they do not deserve any sympathy for condonation of delay. 6. Perusal of the paragraph 9 clearly shows that appellant no.2 was served with notice in the appeal and not only that appellant no.1 5 Chandulal appeared before Tahsildar on 9/10/1985, 9/12/1985 and 3/1/1986 and signed Roznama on these dates. It is impossible to believe that the children of Chandulal, real brother of Chandulal and Premlal and another real brother were not aware about the proceedings before the Tahsildar when appellant no.2 was in the appeal was duly served and Chandulal appeared on above dates. Considering the close relations of the petitioners’ it is not possible for me to accept that it was incumbent on the part of Tahsildar to see that all were served with notice. This is particularly because the matter is now being sought to be opened after 21 years. At any rate sons of Chandulal Tembhre and Lodhu Harichand Tembhre were not present before the Tahsildar. Nothing prevented them from filing the appeal against the order within reasonable time. It is neither legal nor proper at such a late stage to reopen the matter rights in respect of which have been crystallized in favour of the respondent tribal in the year 1980. If the petitioners have a right to say that they will be deprived of suit land, equally respondents 2 to 4 have a right to say that rights crystallized in their favour by virtue of 6 process of law cannot be disturbed after long period of 22 years. Thus, balancing the interest of both the parties and in the light of the above facts that some of petitioners were served and had full opportunity to file appeal, I do not think this Court should interfere with the order made by the Tribunal refusing to condone the delay of over 21 years. The judgments, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on facts of the present case have therefore no application. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. No orders as to costs. JUDGE nvt.