1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5679/2011 (MADHAORAO SHRAWAN MOTGHARE VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri C.R. Najbile, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 30 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 06.10.2010 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 on the ground that it was hopelessly barred by limitation. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 6 of the Act of 1974 questioning the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar on 22.10.1980. The appeal had been preferred by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 02.08.2001 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was stated by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay that he became aware of the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar on 22.10.1980 only on 11.07.2001. It is stated in the application that the petitioner obtained the certified copies on 13.07.2001 and 2 since he was not well from 13.07.2001 to 01.08.2001, he filed the appeal on 02.08.2001. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, however, held that the inordinate delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner and the petitioner had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. The judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 06.10.2010 is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction as the Tribunal rightly came to a conclusion that the inordinate delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. It is necessary to note that though the petitioner had stated in the application for condonation of delay that he became aware of the order dated 22.10.1980 on 11.07.2001, the Tribunal observed that there was material on record to show that repeatedly notices were issued to the petitioner for execution of the order of the Tahsildar and the petitioner had appeared before the Tahsildar on 06.03.1984. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he became aware of the order dated 22.10.1980 only on 11.07.2001 was held to be false to the knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned. Since the petitioner had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and since the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay was false to the knowledge of the petitioner, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3 For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE