IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 110 OF 2009 SHRI. MARIO LEANDRO DIAS ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY ... Respondent Petitioner in person. Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 12th March, 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard the petitioner in person. He declines legal aid when offered. His main contention is that the Administrative Tribunal did not hear him while passing the impugned order dated 27/04/2007. 2. The learned Administrative Tribunal by impugned order dated 27/04/2007 has declined to condone the delay of more than 30 years in filing an appeal under Section 188 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 against the order of the Collector dated 18/01/1973. The petitioner claims that he had a Will made in his favour, so also, a power of attorney given to him by Shri Marcelino Militao Dias which were executed somewhere in March, 1984. The said Shri Marcelino Militao Dias had a grant in his favour which was reverted to the Government by order dated 18/01/1973 and it appears that the said Shri Marcelino Militao Dias chose not to challenge the said order dated 18/01/1973 until his death, which took place on 9/04/1988. This fact has been taken note of by the learned Administrative Tribunal in paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order. If the petitioner also has power of attorney as orally submitted by him, the petitioner too could have taken recourse to law after the said order dated 18/01/973 was made, reverting the land in favour of the Government. In fact, the Tribunal in impugned order dated 27/04/2007 has observed that the said Shri Marcelino Militao Dias was alive for about 15 years, but, did not file any appeal, but, has made several representations to different authorities against the said reversion, but, had made no efforts to file an appeal. The reasons assigned that he could not file an appeal was because of his old age, ill health and lack of funds which have been rejected by the learned Administrative Tribunal, and, in my view rightly, as such broad reasons could not have been accepted. If the said Shri Marcelino Militao Dias could make representation to the authorities, he could have also file an appeal as contemplated by Section 188 of the Code, the period of filing the same being 60 days only. If the present petitioner had a power of attorney then he too could have filed the same, but, it appears that nothing was done in that regard and on that count the impugned order of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. The learned Tribunal in concluding para has observed thus: "In the present case, 30 years have passed after passing of the impugned order. The explanation given is of old age, ill health and shortage of money of Applicant over the period of 30 years, when under law the Applicant has to explain day to day delay. The facts of the case indicate that the delay occurred only on account of inaction and negligence of the Applicant, and therefore, the Applicant has miserably failed to make out sufficient cause to grant condonation." 3. As far as the ground urged before this Court that the present petitioner was not heard by the Tribunal the same cannot be accepted. The copy of the roznama produced by the petitioner clearly shows that on 5/04/007, the arguments were concluded and the impugned order came to be issued on 27/04/2007. Court's records have their own sanctity and cannot be contradicted only because the petitioner says something to the contrary. There is no merit in this petition and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH