1 WP 6078.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6078 OF 2011 1. Gajanan S/o Mahadeo Kunte Age : 79 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : Plot No. 3, New Osmanpura, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Shriram S/o Gajanan Kunte Age : 44 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Dayadhan Apartment, in front of Gokhale Park III, Chinchwad, Pune. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The Municipal Corporation Aurangabad through its Municipal Commissioner. 2. The City Survey Officer, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. M.G.Deokate, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M.Karad, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT :24/08/2011 2 WP 6078.2011 - [ J ] ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioner filed proceedings before the Superintendent of Land Records, who dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Appeal before the Dy. Director of Land Records, Aurangabad U/s 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. There was delay of 32 days in filing the said Appeal. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay. The Dy. Director of Land Records, Aurangabad rejected the said application. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Deokate, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has taken a very hyper technical approach while rejecting the application for condonation of delay. It was erroneous on the part of the authority to observe that each and every day’s delay has to be explained. According to the learned counsel, the Appeal being the substantive right and sufficient reasons have been given, the delay should have been condoned. 4. Mr. Karad, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 3 WP 6078.2011 - [ J ] strenuously opposes the petition and contends that the concept “ sufficient cause ” can not be stretched to such an extent that the said expression itself looses its significance. According to the learned counsel, it can not be said that the appellant no. 2 therein i.e. the petitioner no. 2 was a nominal party. The said ground is made only for the purpose of condonation of delay. The authority has rightly considered all the aspects and rejected the application. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned order. 6. It is a settled law that the party need not explain each and every day’s delay as is held by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another V/s Mst. Katiji and another reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353. 7. The delay was not inordinate one. The same was only of 32 days. The petitioner in the application had given the grounds for the delay. The appellant no. 1 is an old person of about 79 years of age. It seems that the appellant no. 1 was looking after the matter. The Appeal is the substantive right of the party. 4 WP 6078.2011 - [ J ] 8. Taking into account the above conspectus of the matter, I am inclined to condone the delay, so also, the petitioner also deserves to be mulct with the cost. 9. In the result, I pass the following order. The impugned order is quashed and set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits cost of Rs. 1,000/- ( Rupees One Thousand only ) to be paid to the High Court Advocates Bar Association Library within the period of three ( 3 ) weeks from today. The authority shall register the Appeal if it otherwise complies with all other requirements and shall decide the same in accordance with law on its own merits. 10. Rule is accordingly made absolute. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6078.2011 - [ J ] 5 WP 6078.2011 - [ J ]