1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3409/2007 Nathwara Sansthan through its Estate Officer ..vs.. Shriram Baliran Navbudha (dead) through L.Rs. Smt. Narmadabai and Ors., -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 4 th April, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gangane, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petition takes exception to the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. Tenancy A-44/92 on 06.05.1996, whereby respondents' revision came to be allowed and original application filed by the petitioner-Trust came to be dismissed. 3. The impugned order was passed on 06.05.1996 and the present petition challenging the same is filed on 25.07.2007 i.e. after lapse of 11 years. The petitioner in para 12, 13 and 14 has given reasons for condonation of delay. In para 12, the petitioner stated that though Personal Assistant 2 of the Chief Executive Officer namely Govardhanlal Acharya was informed about the impugned order in 1996 he did not inform the Chief Executive Officer till his retirement in the year 2000. After 2000, the other Personal Assistant namely Satyanarayan Deopura, who was working from 2000-04 also did not inform the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner about the impugned order. In my opinion, this cannot be termed as sufficient reason for condonation of delay. In any case, the delay after 2004 is not explained. 4. In para 13, the petitioner has stated that after appointment of Estate Officer for various zones by the petitioner, it was found that no steps were taken against the impugned decision and, thereafter, the matter was placed before the Chief Executive officer of the petitioner-Trust and after taking necessary approval, the present Estate Officer has filed petition and challenged the impugned order. The contends of this para are as vague as possible. The particulars about the dates when the Estate Officer was 3 appointed are not given and when this Estate Officer came to know about the impugned order is also not given. In my view, the contends of this para are also insufficient to condone the delay. 5. In para 14 of the petition, the petitioner stated that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to the decision reported in 1999 (1) Mh. L. J. 321 and no substantial change has occurred in the status of respondents even after passing of the impugned order and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to them. So far as the contention that the impugned order is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1991 (1) Mh. L. J. 321 is concerned, I find no merit inasmuch as the impugned order was passed on 06.05.1996 and the same was based upon Full Bench decision reported in 1989 Mh. L. J. 891. Subsequent change in the law is not a ground for condonation of delay. I also find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. The 4 respondents are very much in possession since the date of the impugned order. In view of above, if inordinate delay of 11 years is condoned and the petitioner is allowed to challenge the impugned order, in that case, I am of the opinion great prejudice would be caused to the respondents. 6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order on the ground of delay and latches. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale