1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1177/2010 Sudhakar M. Niwane and another Vs. Sakharam B. Patke and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. P. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Thakre, AGP for respondent no.2. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER 2010. 1] Heard Advocate Deshpande for the petitioners, and AGP Thakre for respondent no. 2. 2] This Court has issued notice for final disposal on 8th April, 2010. The matter is dismissed against respondent no.1. 3] Advocate Deshpande points out that respondent no.1 has never appeared even before the lower Authorities. 4] His contention is that sale deed executed by respondent no.1 on 23.6.1986 has been found to be vitiated under Section 43 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1948. He is placing reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 442 (Waman Atmaram Lavand and another Vs. Dattatraya @ Dattu Baba Lavand and others) to 2 urge that action for invalidation of that transfer ought to have been initiated within reasonable time. 5] AGP Thakre has pointed out that the writ petition is filed on 8.1.2010. The order of the M.R.T. dated 27th April 1998 has been assailed. According to him, the writ petition, therefore, is hopelessly barred by latches and negligence. He further states that in reported judgment facts revealed that belated initiation of proceedings for invalidation acted to prejudice the purchaser. Here, there are no such pleadings. 6] In reply, Advocate Deshpande has invited CAW No. 1529/2010 seeking leave to raise additional grounds. According to him, those grounds substantiate the prejudice which is caused to the petitioners in the matter. He further states that the petitioners were minor when the order was passed by the M.R.T. and his guardian did not discharge his obligation by filing appropriate writ petition within time. 7] In the light of the judgment of this Court Waman Atmaram Lavand and another Vs. Dattatraya @ Dattu Baba Lavand and others (supra) it is clear that the action for invalidation should have been initiated within reasonable time. Similarly, as the petitioner, were minor, they cannot be blamed for not raising appropriate pleas while defending the same before the Tahsildar. Hence, without going into more details of the controversy, It find it appropriate to give the petitioners necessary opportunity to place all relevant details 3 before the Tahsildar. Only for the said purpose, impugned order dated 22nd April 1992 passed by the Tahsildar, Daryapur in Tenancy Case No. 1/56(29)/90-91 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, further orders passed by Sub Divisional Officer and by M.R.T. also falls to ground. The proceedings in Tenancy Case No. 59(29)/Wader Gangai/5/91-92 are restored back to file of Tahsildar. The petitioners are permitted to raise appropriate defences before the said Authority. 8] After the pleadings are complete, the Tahsildar shall take fresh decision in accordance with law, as early as possible and in any case within a period of six months after the parties appear before it. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Tahsildar on 27th September, 2010. 9] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.