Writ petition 5918/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5918/2010 Ashok s/o Sakharam Gaikwad, Age : 40 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Shivaji Chowk, Near Shivaji Statue, Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. ...Petitioner. Versus 1 Madhukar Sakharam Gaikwad, Age : 50 years, Occu. Business, R/o Shivaji Chowk, Ner Water tank Raver, Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 2 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 3 Deputy Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 4 Addl. Commissioner, Nasik Region, Nasik ....Respondents. Mr. Ujjwal S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for respondents Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM :A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 28th April, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the petition is taken up for hearing, at admission stage, for final disposal. 3 This writ petition is filed against the order dated 30/04/2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division in Writ petition 5918/2010 2 R.T.S. Appeal No. 203/2009. The learned Commissioner, by impugned order, set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon dated 29/06/2009 in Right of Appeal No. 96/2008. The facts leading to this litigation can in short be stated as under. The parties are brothers and they jointly purchased land Gat No. 1404 of village Raver Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon in 1989. They soon got their names recorded as joint owners. In 1998, it appears, a new mutation entry was taken by which the name of respondent was removed from ownership column. The respondent rather belatedly in 2007 for the first time raised objection to this mutation entry by filing R.T.S. Appeal No.24/2007 before the learned Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed his appeal and set aside the impugned mutation entry. The petitioner thereafter went before the Additional Collector by filing an appeal. Additional Collector allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that the revision of the respondent was rather belatedly filed. He advised the respondent that if he had any objection to the ownership etc., he should approach Civil Court. However, as said above, the learned Commissioner set aside this order by the impugned judgment dated 30/04/2010. The only point that arose before me is whether the revision of the respondent which he filed before Sub Divisional Officer, was maintainable after lapse of about eight years. As said above, the mutation was effected in 1998 but for the first time, it was objected to, by the respondent in 2007. The learned Additional Collector observed in his judgment that no explanation whatsoever, in respect of delay has been given by the respondent. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent contended that when this appeal was contested at the Sub Divisional officer’s level, the Writ petition 5918/2010 3 petitioner did not raise any objection in respect of delay. He further pointed out that there is no provision prescribing any time limit for filing of this appeal. In other words, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent is contending that it is not open for the petitioner or for the Court to examine maintainability of the appeal before Sub Divisional Officer at belated stage. Assuming that the petitioner did not raise objection in respect of delay in filing of this appeal before Sub Divisional Officer but it was incumbent on the learned Sub Divisional Officer to examine as to whether he should entertain it after eight long years. It appears from the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer that this aspect has not been taken into account. So, it was quite natural that the learned Additional Collector raised this question and held that though there is no prescribed limitation, it must be filed within a reasonable time. He held that eight years delay was gross and could not have been condoned. He further observed as said above that no explanation was given by the respondent for filing the revision rather belatedly. The law on this subject is settled long back and reliance can be placed on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Others reported in 2009 (6) ALL MR 489. The Supreme Court very clearly held that though no time for filing revision is prescribed, reasonable period within which such revision should be exercised, would be three years, subject to exceptional circumstances. Although the learned Additional Collector has not referred to this judgment but, he what is stated in his judgment is quite akin to the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the learned Writ petition 5918/2010 4 Commissioner brushed aside this important aspect that goes to the root of the case, by saying that the learned Collector had given “undue importance to the issue of limitation”. He did not care to examine this aspect carefully and seriously. Ld. Commissioner thus has committed gross error in deciding the appeal. He ought to have dismissed the appeal. Having regard to the facts of the case which I have purposely not discussed in my order, I find the judgment and order was passed by learned Additional Collector is the appropriate answer to the difficulty faced by the respondent. I am aware that the respondent has faced a serious difficulty about the mutation entry but the solution for this difficulty is not before the revenue officer. But, as suggested by the Additional Collector, it would be appropriate for him to go before the Civil Court. Rule is made absolute in terms of following order. ORDER The impugned order dated 30/04/2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division in R.T.S. Appeal No. 203/2009 is set aside and the order passed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon dated 29/06/2009 in Right of Appeal No. 96/2008 is confirmed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/2011/April28/wp5918.10/ok