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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8941 OF 2007 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8941 OF 2007 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8941 OF 2007 1. Smt. Shaymibai Ragho Kharate @ ] Mhatre & anr. ] .. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra & 3 ors. ] .. Respondents Mr. R.D. Suryavanshi for the petitioners. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for the respondents No.1 to 4. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 16TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. : 1. The order passed under section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the said Act") in the year 1982 was challenged by filing revision under section 34 of the said Act. The said revision was filed on 1st April, 2005. The same has been rejected by the State Government being not within time. The petitioners have not been able to explain the delay at the time of filing the revision. The petitioners, though, have tried to explain the delay in this petition stating that petitioner No.1 is aged 93 years and petitioner No.2 is educated only upto tenth : 2 : standard. 2. The age of the petitioner at the time when revision was filed is irrelevant. The petitioners are under an obligation to explain to the court and/or to the State Government as to why from 1982 onwards till 2005, they were unable to file the revision, challenging the section 8(4) order passed under the said Act. 3. What we find is that the revision petition was hopelessly time-barred, unexplained delays were there and the Government, though has not given hearing to the petitioners, was justified in not entertaining the revision. No interference is called for. Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.]