1 WP 3421/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3421 OF 2010 Khanderao s/o Narayanrao Undegaonkar, Aged 74 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o Bus Stand Road, Parbhani Petitioner V E R S U S 1 Renukadas s/o Balkrishnarao Deshpande, Age 41 years, Occ. Service, R/o Kranti Chowk, Parbhani Respondents 2 Yamunabai w/o Balkrishnarao Deshpande, Age 79 years, Occ. Household, R/o as above. 3 Durga d/o Balkrishnarao Deshpande, Age 36 years, Occ. Education, R/o as above. 4 Kshama d/o Balkrishnarao Deshpande, Age 33 years, Occ. Service, R/o as above 5 Superintendent of Land Record, Parbhani, District Parbhani Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Shinde, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for respondent No.5 / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22nd March, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission. 2. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 20th March, 2010, passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, in Appeal/SR1010 of 2009. 2 WP 3421/10 The facts leading to the impugned order are as under : 3. In 1982 or so, survey of lands and properties situated in Parbhani town took place as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The boundaries were fixed and Sanads were issued to the city survey holders. Before fixing of the boundaries, notices were issued to all the parties including the present respondents. The properties of the parties before this Court are adjoining. The respondents thought that the area and boundary of his city survey No. 2218 are incorrectly recorded and he also suspected that due to the incorrectness of the boundary, the area of his plot is reduced and the area of the plot of the petitioner has increased. In order to correct the city survey record, rather belatedly, they first filed suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 277 of 1997, but the same was dismissed for default. The respondents then did not take further action till recently. On 5th May, 2008, they filed an application before the Superintendent of Land Records, Parbhani seeking correction of the city survey record. It seems, though it is not expressly mentioned, such application was filed as review, as per the provisions of Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Since this application was time bared, the respondents made an application under Section 251 of the Code seeking condonation of delay. The learned Superintendent of Land Records, Parbhani condoned the delay and agreed to entertain their review application. As against this order, the petitioner went in appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad. The appeal was dismissed saying that Section 252 of the Code does not permit filing of an appeal against the order passed under Section 252 of the Code. I find no error in the order, because of the peculiar provisions of Sections 251 and 252 of the Code, which read as under : 3 WP 3421/10 251. Admission of appeal after period of limitation : Any appeal or an application for review under this Chapter may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor when the appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, satisfies the officer or the State Government to whom to to which he appeals or applies, that he had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal or application, as the case may be, within such period. 252. Appeal shall not be against certain orders : No appeal shall lie from an order - (a) admitting an appeal or an application for review under section 251; (b) rejecting an application for revision or review; or (c) granting or rejecting an application for stay. 4. The facts and circumstances of this case show that the application filed by the respondents before the Superintendent of Land Records, Parbhani is a review. The Superintendent of Land Records has power to consider such application in view of provisions of Section 258 of the Code. The Superintendent of Land Records also has power to condone the delay in view of Section 251 of the Code, but Section 252 of the Code prohibits an aggrieved party to challenge such order condoning the delay. In view of this, the writ petition stands dismissed. It is needless to say that the petitioner has ample opportunity to get the review application dismissed on merits. In view of above, ad-interim relief stands vacated. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/3421/10/22/3/11 4 WP 3421/10