1 W.P.6968.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6968 OF 2010 Hamid S/o Mehmood Pathan ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. M.B.Kolpe, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.B.Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3. Shri.S.S.Jadhavar,Advocate for respondent No.4 Shri.V.D.Deshmukh,Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 6TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Writ Petition can be decided finally at interim stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This petition is challenging the impugned order dated 07th May, 2010, passed by the learned Superintendent of Land Records, Aurangabad, in Appeal /S.R. 706 of 2009. 4. The respondent, who was appellant before the learned Superintendent was trying to challenge certain entry taken by 2 W.P.6968.10 the City Survey Officer, Tuljapur, in the year 1982. The appeal was filed after about 24 years, though for filing such appeal, only 60 days period of limitation is provided. However, the appellate authority has ample discretion to condone such delay. The impugned order has condoned delay of 24 years and so it is challenged in this petition. 5. Learned Superintendent condoned the delay mainly on the ground that respondent-appellant deserved opportunity for pressing appeal on merits. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am also of the same opinion. If the delay is condoned the respondent would get fair opportunity to challenge the correctness of the impugned entry. The impugned entry has not given any advantage or benefit to the petitioner also. The entries in revenue record do not decide title. Since 2006, admittedly, the parties are before Civil Court, where title to the disputed property would be decided. The entry in revenue record is subject to the outcome of the Civil Court. The petition should, therefore, fail. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- [ A.V.NIRGUDE, J.] MTK 3 W.P.6968.10