1 wp3460-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3460 OF 2010 Kashinath Rama Shinde D/H. Shri Baburao Kashinath Shinde and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Maruti Buva Math and ors. ..Respondents ­­ Mr.A.B.Avhad, for petitioners. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26 th NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25 th February, 1985 passed by the Sub­Divisional Officer by which a certificate under Section 88­B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was granted to the first respondent. The present petition has been filed on 13 th April, 2010 which is nearly 35 years after the impugned order. The explanation in the writ petition is that the petitioners were not aware of the impugned order and they became aware about the impugned order when inspection of the proceedings of the suit filed by the first respondent was 2 wp3460-10.sxw taken. In paragraph 6 of their petition, it is stated that on 10 th September, 2009 the petitioners obtained a copy of the said order and met the advocate for advise. It is stated that after legal advice was taken, the petitioners challenged the said order. As the said explanation for delay was not satisfactory, the petitioners were permitted to file additional affidavit to explain the delay. Accordingly, an additional affidavit has been filed and it is stated that the petitioners were not aware about the details of the impugned order and only on the legal advice received after obtaining copy of order, he filed the petition. 3] Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is more than adequate explanation for the delay in the additional affidavit. He submitted that the impugned order is illegal in as much as the earlier application made by the first respondent for grant of exemption was dismissed and the second application on which the impugned order was passed was not maintenable. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Dattu Hari Mali @ Dattu Rau Mali since deceased by his legal heirs and others Vs. Peer Alli Darga Masjid (Powali Peer) through its Vahiwatdar [2005(2)Bom.C.R.442]. 4] I have carefully considered the submissions. On the basis of the impugned order dated 25 th February, 1985 the first respondent filed a suit for possession against the petitioners in the year 1993. The petitioners were was served with suit summons and they have filed written statement on 25 th March, 1994. In the written statement, a contention has been raised by the petitioners that they were not aware of any such order. In 3 wp3460-10.sxw fact, a contention has been raised in the written statement that the impugned order dated 25 th February, 1985 was illegal. The petitioners have come out with the case that they made aware of the impugned order when they obtained a certified copy of the impugned order on 10 th September, 2009. Thus, there is gross unexplained delay in approaching this Court. The petitioners were aware of the impugned order at least on 25 th November, 1994 Even assuming that the impugned order is illegal, writ petition cannot entertained after lapse of 35 years. Only on the ground of gross delay and latches, Writ Petition is rejected. [A.S.OKA, J]