1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2310 OF 2010 (RUPLAL PURAN CHOUDHARI...VS.. RAMDAS KASHIRAM KUSRAM & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.C.R. Najbile, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.V.A.Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2011. Heard Mr. Najbile, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Thakare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur on 16.02.2010 refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 as also the order passed by the Tahsildar on 14.06.1989 directing the petitioner to restore the land to respondent No.1 Ramdas. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader and on perusal of the judgment and submissions filed on behalf of the authorities, it appears that the land was sold by respondent No.1 tribal to the petitioner, a non-tribal. Suo-motu proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar, Sakoli under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1974 and the land was directed to be restored to respondent No.1 Ramdas by the order dated 22.10.1980. The father of the petitioner, who 2 was a party to the proceedings under Section 3, filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed in default by an order dated 27.08.1984. Thereafter the proceedings under Section 36-A(6) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code were initiated for determination of compensation and by the order dated 14.06.1989 the Tahsildar determined the purchase price. The order passed by the Tahsildar on 14.06.1989 was challenged by the petitioner for the first time in July, 2001 by an appeal under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. It was the case of the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay that the petitioner was not served with any notice of the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Act of 1974 and it was only in June, 2001 that the petitioner became aware that an order was passed by the Tahsildar on 14.06.1989. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, however, rejected the application for condonation of delay as also the appeal filed by the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 16.02.2010, it appears that the order is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It appears that the Tahsildar had passed the order of restoration after issuing notice to the father of the petitioner and the petitioner’s father had appeared before the Tahsildar on 25.11.1983, 07.02.1984 and 13.03.1984 before the order of restoration was passed on 24.07.1986 and the order determining the compensation was 3 passed on 14.06.1989. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal considered the fact that the original order was passed by the Tahsildar on 22.10.1980 against the father of the petitioner directing him to restore the land to respondent No.1 Ramdas and that order had attained finality after the appeal filed by the father of the respondent was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 27.08.1984. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner had not given any cogent and satisfactory reason for condonation of the huge delay of more than 12 years in filing the appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Since the father of the petitioner was heard in the previous proceedings in which order was passed on 22.10.1980 and also in the proceedings in which the orders were passed on 24.07.1986 and 14.06.1989, the Tribunal rightly held that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he was not served with the notice of the proceedings was ill-founded. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..