( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1395 OF 1993 Lingram s/o Madhavrao Kore, R/o Tivatgyal, Tq. Udgir, District Latur. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Sangram Madhavrao Kore Since deceased, by L.Rs. 2A. Smt. Kalubai w/o Sangram Kore, R/o Tivatgyal, Tq. Udgir, District Latur. 2B. Gopinath s/o Sangram Kore, R/o c/o Zilla Parishad Samiti Udgir Dam Road, Samata Nagar, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 2C. Shivaji s/o Sangram Kore, R/o Tivatgyal, Tq. Udgir, District Latur. 2D. Somnath s/o Sangram Kore, Age : 13 years, being minor under guardianship of his mother respondent No. 1. 3. Dattu Madhavrao Kore, R/o Tivatgyal, Tq. Udgir, District Latur. RESPONDENTS ….. Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondent No. 1/State. Mr. S.G. Karlekar, advocate for the respondents No. 2A to 2D. ….. [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 13th August, 2010] ( 2 ) ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges orders rendered by the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 24th November, 1992 in revision application filed by him and the learned Collector, Latur on 2nd September, 1992. 2. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was aggrieved on account of certification of mutation entry in name of the respondents. It appears that mutation entry No. 78 was sanctioned in favour of the respondents, indicating their names in the revenue record in the column of ownership and possession in respect of lands Survey Nos. 15, 16 and 17 situated at village Tivatgyal, under Udgir Tahsil. The petitioner preferred ROR appeal No. 91/GB/ROR/A-23 against the said mutation entry. The petitioner also filed delay condonation application alleging that the date of decision i.e. 18-05-1990 in the mutation proceedings was never communicated to him. He asserted that he was under the impression that the matter was pending before the Tahsildar. He contended that he came to know about the impugned order dated 18-05-1990 only on 07-10-1991. he ( 3 ) thereafter applied for certified copy of the said order and immediately, preferred the appeal. In other words, his contention was that the delay was caused due to absence of information regarding disposal of the dispute pertaining to the mutation entry. The delay condonation application was scheduled for hearing on 25th August, 1992. The learned Collector noticed that the advocate of the petitioner was absent on that date of hearing i.e. 25th August, 1992. He, therefore, closed the case after refusing to condone the delay. The learned advocate of the petitioner subsequently appeared and filed an application seeking opportunity of hearing on the same day. The further order which was passed shows that the request was refused. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision which was not entertained by the learned Additional Commissioner by holding that he did not find justification for the delay of one year and three (3) months. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, two (2) things are explicit. First, the learned Collector did not give any opportunity to the advocate of the petitioner who had appeared on the same day and without hearing him, the delay condonation application was disposed of. The impugned order rendered by the learned ( 4 ) Collector does not show that he considered the averments in the delay condonation application. He simply noticed that there was delay of one (1) year and three (3) months and the case was closed after perusal of the record and the delay was not being condoned. The impugned order dated 2nd September, 1992 was rendered without following the principles of natural justice. Another fact is that the statement of the petitioner that he was never informed about the impugned judgement and order dated 18th May, 1990 rendered by the tenancy authority in file No. 1983/ROR/19 was out-rightly rejected without ascertaining the truth. It does not appear that the said statement was controverted in any manner. The Collector could have called for the relevant file of the proceedings pertaining to mutation entry No. 78. That was not done. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to appreciate the rejection of the request for delay condonation and particularly because the petitioner was not given due opportunity of hearing. 4. Taking overall view of the matter, the following order would meet the ends of justice. “The petition is allowed. The impugned orders are ( 5 ) set aside. The appeal and the application for delay condonation are restored to its original position. The learned Collector, Latur to decide the application for delay condonation on its own merits after giving due opportunity to both the sides to address on the question of the condonation of delay. The parties shall appear before the Collector, Latur on 20th September, 2010. The application for delay condonation may be considered after perusal of the roznama and the relevant record regarding the mutation entry and file No. 1983/ROR/19. The Collector may also consider the subsequent developments particularly the decision rendered in the civil Suit between the parties. The petition is accordingly disposed of.” [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp1335-93