1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4932/2010. Bandu Govinda Zinzurkar and others. -: VERSUS :- Additional Collector and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2010. Heard Shri R.M. Pande, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for Respondent nos.4 to 6 and Shri Kulkarni with Shri Lohe, learned Counsel for respondent no.7. By the impugned order passed on 08.06.2010, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has refused to condone delay of 24 days in filing Revision under Section 111 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. Leaned Counsel for petitioners contends that poverty was the reason given and that reason has not been appropriately evaluated. He further 2 states that the date of knowledge of impugned order is totally irrelevant here. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that in paragraph no.4 the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has found that there was no sufficient and cogent reason for condoning the delay. In paragraph no.3 it found that the application for obtaining certified copy was made on 05.11.2004 and copy was delivered on 19.11.2004 and thus, the contention that petitioners got knowledge of orders on 19.11.2004 is false. Application for condonation of delay as filed shows that in paragraph no.3, poverty is the reason given by petitioners. They have contended that because of financial crises they could not arrange to file revision. They have also stated that they are illiterate and can put only their signatures. These reasons are not looked into by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. In this background, I have considered the matter on merits. Contention of petitioners is that they are heirs of Govind Lohar, whose name was recorded in 7/12 and other revenue record, as tenants. Present respondents 4 to 6 moved application before the Tahsildar on 26.06.2001 stating that the said Govinda has expired 3 without leaving any legal heirs and hence, his name should be deleted as tenant. Accordingly by order dated 28.07.2001 that name has been deleted. That order was upheld in Appeal by the Sub Divisional Officer and order of Sub Divisional Officer is then alleged to have been challenged in Second Appeal before the Additional Collector. The order of Additional Collector has been questioned in tenancy revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Learned A.G.P. has tried to urge that the channel of challenge does not appear to be proper. However, that aspect can be looked into by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal while taking cognizance of the revision on merits. As I find that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has taken too technical approach in the matter, the impugned order is unsustainable. Certified copy was obtained on 19.11.2004 and revision has been filed on 15.01.2004. That delay is of 24 days. Looking to the nature of litigation and poverty of petitioner as claimed, I am inclined to condone the delay. With the result, the application for condonation of delay moved by the petitioners is allowed. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is 4 directed to register the tenancy revision and to decide it in accordance with law. The doubt raised by learned A.G.P. is left open for consideration by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.