( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9703 OF 2010 1. Mr. Dhanraj s/o. Laxman Malshikare, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Mr. Shankar s/o. Laxman Malshikare, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Agriculture. Both petitioners R/o. Ranmala, Taluka & District : Dhule. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Revenue Department. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. Mr. Yashin s/o. Abdul Khatik, Age : Major, Occupation : Business. 4. Mr. Rashid s/o. Abdul Khatik, Age : Major, Occupation : Business. Both Respondent nos.3 and 4 R/o. Moglai, Near School No.14, Shanin Nagar, Sakri Road, Dhule, Taluka & District : Dhule. ( 2 ) 5. Mr. Adhar s/o. Anandrao Singade, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ranmala, Taluka & District : Dhule. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. D.A. Naik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 and 4. Respondent no.5 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3RD MAY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. D.A. Naik, for the petitioners; learned AGP Mrs. V.A. Shinde, for respondent nos.1 and 2, and Adv. Mr. D.S. Bagul, for respondent nos.3 and 4. None for respondent no.5 though duly served. ( 3 ) 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent. 3. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 7-12-2009 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in R.T.S. Revision No. 334/2008. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 15-9-2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Dhule, in R.T.S. APpeal No. 3/2007. 4. Adv. Mr. D.A. Naik, for the petitioners, contends that though matter is sent back to the Sub-Divisional Officer by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, the question of limitation has been indirectly concluded. His contention is, respondent nos.3 and 4 have not brought on record anything to substantiate their contention that they have been residing at Gujrat and inspite of this, the authority has accepted that stand and condoned delay. 5. Adv. Mr. D.S. Bagul, for respondent nos.3 and 4, contends that the Sub-Divisional Officer can look into the question of condonation of delay also. Second contention of Adv. Bagul is, in appeal which has been filed belatedly, though delay is not condoned, observations on purchase by petitioners ( 4 ) are made and names of respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to be added in other rights column in revenue records. He argues that when delay itself is not condoned, such discussion on merit or such permission to add names of respondent nos.3 and 4 causes serious prejudice to the present respondents. According to him, Civil Suit filed is being considered by the trial court. Adv. Bagul attempts to demonstrate that acquisition of title by the petitioners is not in accordance with law as real title was always with and vests in respondent nos.3 and 4. The petitioners, therefore, could not have purchased the property from respondent no.5. 6. I have perused the order of Additional Collector dated 15-9-2008 and the order dated 7-12-2009 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. 7. The names of respondent nos.3 and 4 can be added only after their appeal is allowed and for that the delay in the matter first needs to be condoned. As that has not been done, the direction to add their names to revenue records in other rights column is without jurisdiction and unsustainable. 8. However, at the same time, prejudice likely to be caused to present respondent nos.3 and 4 also cannot be ( 5 ) overlooked. According to them, the petitioners have no title to suit property. The property, therefore, must remain available to answer final adjudication in the matter and also answer to decree of civil court. Civil Court can definitely pass appropriate orders in this respect but then the petitioners need to be restrained from creating third party interest or from changing or altering nature of suit property till the Sub-Divisional Officer considers the question of condonation of delay. 9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 7-12-2009 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in R.T.S. Revision No. 334/2008, is modified. (ii) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhule, shall look into the question of condonation of delay first and if delay is condoned, shall proceed to examine controversy on merits. Till the Sub- Divisional Officer decides this controversy, the petitioners shall not create any third party interest or shall not alter the nature of suit property to the prejudice of present respondent nos.3 and 4. (iii) The direction to include names of respondent nos.3 and 4 in other rights column in revenue records is quashed and set ( 6 ) aside. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhule, on 31st May 2011. The said authority shall attempt to decide the matter before it as early as possible and in any case, by 31st August 2011. (v) It is made clear that observations made by this court are only prima facie in nature and neither Sub-Divisional Officer nor Civil Court shall be influenced by the same and appropriate decision will be reached by the said authority / court after appreciating independently material produced before them. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9703