IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6862 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6862 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6862 OF 2007 Shri Dilip Kashinath Dhongade ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. Chief Promoter, Baneshwar Coop. Hsg.] Society & Anr. ] .. Respondent Mr. S.B. Malwankar for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Sawant with Mr. Sachin D. Kadam for the respondent No.1. CORAM: S.B. MHASE, J. DATED: 08TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The order dated 28th June, 2007, passed in Adivasi Appeal No.147 of 2006 is under challenge. By the said order, the delay application is rejected. Proceedings under The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1975, were initiated. The matter came upto the High Court and it was remanded back. After remand, in 1980, the Sub Divisional Officer decided that the heirs brought on record are not tribals and, therefore, disposed of the proceedings. That order : 2 : is not challenged by the heirs in those proceedings and/or the so-called heirs who are coming before this court by way of a Writ Petition. It appears that the petitioner challenged those orders in the year 2004 by filing an application before the Sub Divisional Officer which was rejected. Against that, Revision was preferred in which there was a delay. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2001 (3) Mh.LJ, 916 in the matter of Udhav Uttam Patil Vs. Daga Udhav Uttam Patil Vs. Daga Udhav Uttam Patil Vs. Daga Holkya Bhil & ors. Holkya Bhil & ors. Holkya Bhil & ors. This judgment has observed that the ends of justice would be met if we set out a period of 30 years from the commencement of the Act (i.e. from 1st November, 1975) or a period of three years from the conclusion of inquiry by the Collector under section 3 or section 4 of the Act so as to exercise powers of revision under section 7 either suo motu or at the instance of the State Government. These interpretations of reasonable period must be read in alternative to each other and if any of them is satisfied in a given case it ought to be held that the revision power has been exercised within a reasonable period and it cannot suffer by inordinate delay. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, what this court finds is that in 1980, the matter has been decided by the Sub- : 3 : Divisional Officer holding that the heirs are not tribals and till 2004 there was no challenge to the said order. Therefore, if we calculate the period of 30 years from the date of enactment and/or 3 to 4 years from the date of order, both these periods have already elapsed. Therefore, even if we try to apply the ratio of the reported judgment, the case of the petitioner is not covered. 4. This Court, therefore, refrains to entertain the Petition and it is rejected. Sd/- [S.B. MHASE, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.]