1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1611 OF 2010 1 Venkatesh s/o Narsayya Mamaiwar (Reddy), age: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o Venkatesh Nagar, Nanded. 2 Ramdas s/o Pralhadrao Shakkarwar, age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o 19, Ganesh Nagar, Nanded. Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Mukhed, District Nanded. 3 Purushottam s/o Pandharinath Kautikwar, age: 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o Gadgaon, Tq. Naigaon, District Nanded. 4 Suryakant s/o Digamber Pathak, age: major, Occ: service, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Mukhed, R/o At Municipal Council, Umarkhed, District Yavatmal. Respondents Mr.H.I.Pathan, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.R.B.Bhosale, advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.F.R.Tandale, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.R.L.Joshi, advocate for Respondent No.4. 2 CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 24 th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard Shri H.I.Pathan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri N.N.Jadhav, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No.1, Shri R.B.Bhosale, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, Shri F.R.Tandale, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 and Shri R.L.Joshi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2 An application tendered by the petitioners herein to the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, seeking condonation of delay of 306 days occurred in presenting Revision Application has been rejected by the Additional Commissioner in view of the order passed on 30.01.2010. The Revision Application is tendered by the petitioners herein under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Nagar Parishads, Panchayat Samitis and Industrial Township Act, 1965, raising exception to the mutation entry recorded by Municipal Council, Mukhed on 23.11.2006. It is the contention of petitioner no.2 that he has purchased the disputed property from petitioner no.1 and the 3 entry, that has been recorded by the Municipal Council, relates to the property, which belongs to the petitioner no.2. It is further contended by him that the entry has been recorded behind back and without issuing intimation to the petitioners. The contesting Respondent has also secured permission to raise construction over the disputed property on 23.10.2007 from the Municipal Council. It is further disclosed that on the basis of construction permission, the concerned respondent has started raising construction, where upon, the petitioners gathered information in respect of recording of mutation entry and approached the revisional authority. It is stated that the delay, that has been occurred, is unintentional and if the matter is not considered on its own merits, a serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioners. The application seeking condonation of delay was opposed by the contesting respondent contending that the delay has not been properly explained. It has also been contended that the petitioners herein do not have any entitlement to the property in dispute. The learned Additional Commissioner, who heard the application, was pleased to reject the same in view of the order passed on 30.01.2010. 3 I have perused the application as well as the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner. That, so far as merits of the controversy are concerned, it is not necessary to probe into the rival contentions raised by the parties. Petitioners herein are pleading their entitlement in relation to the 4 property in dispute and the matter relates to recording of mutation entry by the Municipal Council. So far as the contention of the petitioners, as stated in the application, that they have gathered information about recording of mutation entry only after concerned respondent started raising construction over the disputed property, prima facie, it does appear that the mutation entry has been recorded without transmitting any notice to the petitioners herein. Even taking into consideration the nature of dispute as well as the question relating to the mutation entries of immovable urban property, being the subject matter of dispute, it is desirable that the matter shall be decided by the revisional authority considering the merits of the controversy. 4 It is contended by the contesting respondent that the petitioner has not explained the delay properly and has not accounted for each day’s delay. As the impugned mutation entry, which is stated to have been recorded, without notice to the petitioners, it is obvious that the petitioners, after gaining knowledge in respect of recording of mutation entry, have approached the revisional authority. In these circumstances, ends of justice would meet if the revisional authority is directed to decide the matter on its own merits. Considering the length of time lapsed in raising challenge to the impugned order, it is also appropriate to direct the petitioners to pay costs. 5 In the circumstances enumerated above, I deem it 5 appropriate to direct the petitioners to deposit costs of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) within four weeks from today, which shall be payable to the respondents. The amount of costs shall be deposited with the revisional authority. The order passed by Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, on 30.01.2010, is quashed and set aside and the revisional authority is directed to decide the Revision Application on its own merits and in accordance with law. 6 Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp161110