SSK/959 1 WP.1001.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1001 OF 2011 Y. R. Upadhyay ....Petitioner Versus The Collector Thane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. G. M. Savagave, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 20th APRIL, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Savagave, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP for respondents. 2. By the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in default. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appeal was dismissed as neither the petitioner nor his counsel remained present when the appeal was called for hearing on 14th June, 2007, 7th August, 2007 and 29th August, 2007. It is the case of the petitioner that he had engaged the services of a lawyer. He further submitted that his lawyer never informed him about the dates of the SSK/959 2 WP.1001.11 hearing fixed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and, therefore, he could not remain present on those dates. Learned AGP submitted that no justification is given by the petitioner for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed and, therefore, no interference with the impugned is called for. 3. Perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the petitioner had engaged a lawyer to represent him. It is the duty of the petitioner also to remain present on the fixed date of hearing before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. However, in view of the petitioner’s explanation that his lawyer was looking after the litigation and he could not remain present in the absence of knowledge of date of hearing from his lawyer, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be punished for the fault of his lawyer and, therefore, I am inclined to give one opportunity to the petitioner, however, subject to payment of the cost. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, by passing the following order : 1. The impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal/Desk/MNL/473/2006 is quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded back with direction to the Additional Commissioner to decide the petitioner’s SSK/959 3 WP.1001.11 appeal on merits subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai shall dispose of the petitioner’s appeal expeditiously and independently on its own merit. 3. The petitioner is at liberty to apply for interim order in the aforesaid appeal. In the light of the above order, the writ petition is disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)