1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4193/2008 1] Rajaram S/o Bhagwat Raut Age 33, Occ-Agri. R/o Karla, Tq. Paranda, Dist.Osmanabad. 2] Sukhdeo S/o Dagdu Raut, Age 43, Occ-Agri R/o as above. 3] Annasaheb S/o Bhagwat Raut, Age 31, Occ-Agri. R/o as above. 4] Shivaji S/o Dagdu Raut, Age 44, Occ-Agri. R/o as above. .. PETITIONERS Versus 1] Dattatraya s/o Eknath Shinde Died through L.Rs. 1-A] Babasaheb s/o Dattatraya Shinde Age 45 years, Occ-Agril. R/o Kandari, Tq. Paranda Dist.Osmanabad. 1-B] Bahirav s/o Dattatraya Shinde Age 43 yrs, Occ-Agril., 2 R/o as above. 1-C] Udhave s/o Dattatraya Shinde, Age 41 years, Occ-Agri R/o as above. 1-D] Satyabhama wd/o Dattatraya Shinde age 70 yrs, Occ-Agri R/o as above. 1-E] Champabai w/o Govardhan Deshmukh Age 38 yrs. Occ-Agri R/o as above. 1-F] Soja w/o Ramchandra Deshmukh age 35 yrs. Occ-Agri R/o as above. 1-G] Kamal w/o Sambhu Deshmukh Age 33 years, Occ-Agri R/o as above. 1-H] Kalinda w/o Nagnath Timbile Age 28 yrs. Occ-Agri R/o as above. 2] Sidhshewar s/o Rama Pawar Age 30 yrs, occ-Agri R/o Hingangaon (Kh) Tal.Paranda Dist.Osmanabad. 3] Satish S/o Rama Pawar Age 26 years, Occ-Agri R/o as above. 4] Mohan s/o Rama Pawar Age 25 yrs, Occ-Agril R/o as above 3 5] Akkabai w/o Rama Pawar age 50 yrs, Occ-Agri R/o as above. Respondents 4 & 5 dismissed as per Court's order dated 7/8/2009 7] The State of Maharashtra Through Additional Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner Office, Delhi Gate, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri S.Y.Mahajan,Adv.for petitioners. Shri S.S.Thombre,Adv.for R.1-A to 1-E & 1-G to 1-H. Respondents 2 and 3 served. Respondents 4 and 5 are dismissed as per Court's order dated 7/8/2009. Shri K.M.Suryawanshi,AGP. for Respondent No.7. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 2/8/2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1] This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 17/1/2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner,Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Revision Petition filed under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Revision has been dismissed on the ground that there was delay of 506 days caused in filing Revision Application and no sufficient cause 4 has been shown for condonation of delay. 2] Notice in this matter was issued for final disposal on 15/7/2008. All the parties are served. Shri S.S.Thombre, the learned counsel appears for respondent 1-A to 1-E & 1-G to 1- H 1 and 2, whereas Shri K.M.Suryawanshi, the learned A.G.P. appears for respondent No.7. The learned counsels for the parties agree that Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsels for the parties, Petition is heard finally. 3] The case of the petitioners was that although the order was passed by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad in Case No.6/RTS/59/05 on 31/5/2005, the said order was never communicated to the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners that when they came to know that such an order is passed, they submitted an application for certified copy of the said order on 18/10/2006. The copy was delivered on 28/12/2006 and Revision was filed immediately thereafter. Hence, there was no delay caused in filing Revision Application and if at all there was any such delay caused, the same has been explained by giving sufficient cause. 4] The Additional Commissioner has held that on 13/6/2006 caveat notice was given by the respondents to the petitioners 5 and it was sent by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due and receipt about the same pasted on the caveat application, was also placed on record. It was held that inspite of this, the petitioners have not taken cognizance of the notice nor they have obtained certified copy of the judgment from the office of Collector,Osmanabad nor from the revisional authority, within stipulated period. Hence it was held that the contention of the petitioners, that the delay of 506 days is not deliberate and not intentional, cannot be accepted. The Application for condonation of delay was therefore, rejected, as a result the Revision Application under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code also stood rejected. 5] Perusal of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code shows that there is no limitation prescribed for preferring such Revision. However, that does not mean that orders can be challenged at any time. It has to be shown that the Revision has been preferred within reasonable time. This is what has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2010 (2) M.L.J. 150 in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and others V/s Balasaheb Tukaram Shevare and others . In view of this, the revisional authority has to see whether the Revision was preferred within reasonable period or not, without applying the strict rigours of the provisions of Limitation Act. 6 6] The findings recorded by the revisional authority that caveat notice dated 13/6/2005 was sent by R.P.A.D. and therefore, the petitioners are presumed to have knowledge of the judgment of the Additional Collector delivered on 31/5/2005, also cannot be sustained. The notice was sent by R.P.A.D. and no such presumption can be drawn on the production of evidence of receipt regarding sending of such a notice. What is required to be shown is that the petitioners have actually received the copy of notice by producing, acknowledgment on record. However, in the absence of any acknowledgment being produced on record, the Additional Commissioner should not have held that the petitioners have acquired the knowledge of the order through Caveat notice dated 13/6/2005. 7] In view of above, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, cannot be sustained. The same therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside by remanding the matter back to the Additional Commissioner for considering it afresh. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, there is no limitation prescribed and the matter is governed by the Apex Court’s judgment cited supra, whereas Shri S.S.Thombre, the learned counsel for respondents submits that he is prepared to produce a copy of acknowledgment about service of Caveat notice dated 13/6/2005 upon the petitioners. The parties are 7 permitted to advance all such arguments and to place on record such documents in support of their case, as they deem fit and proper. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, shall take into consideration all these aspects and shall decide the case in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs. It is made clear that this Court has not decided any point. The order impugned is set aside only on the ground that the Additional Commissioner has proceeded on wrong footing i.e. by assuming that the limitation applies and petitioner was served with order impugned. The learned counsels for the parties submit that they would appear before the Additional Commissioner,Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, on 7th September 2010. Record and Proceedings be sent back immediately. [R. K. DESHPANDE, J.] umg/wp4193-08