1 wp482.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.482 OF 1994 Dajiram Kondiba Khartude ...Petitioner vs. 1 Shri Nagnath Deo by his Vahivatdar a) Bhagwan Jagannath Bandisti b) Madhukar Jagannath Bandisti c) Sudhakar Jagannath Bandisti 2 The District Deputy Collector Baramati Division, Baramati, Dist. Pune 3 Tahsildar, Dhone, Dist.Pune 4 State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr.M.R.Katikar for the petitioner Mr.A.I.Patel, A.G.P for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 15,2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 28 th November 1963 passed by the learned Deputy Collector of Baramati. By the said order, the Deputy Collector directed that the exemption certificate under section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 be issued to the first respondent-trust. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay in approaching this Court has been explained in the petition. He pointed out that the petitioner 2 wp482.sxw approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by filing a revision application which was rejected. He produced for the perusal of the Court the original letter received from the Deputy Registrar Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. He submitted that the petitioners had no knowledge of the impugned order till the petitioners made an application in the year 1991 for fixing the price under section 32G of the said Act. After the Tahsildar informed the petitioner about the impugned order, a revision application was preferred by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which was returned. He submitted that the delay is properly explained. He submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Laxminarayan Temple Vs. Laxman Mahadu Chandore (1969 Mh.L.J. 476), exemption under section 88-B of the said Act could not have been granted. 3 I have considered the submissions. For challenging the order passed by the District Deputy Collector on 28th November 1963, the present petition is filed on 10 th December 1993. The impugned order notes that the tenant was duly served with the notice of the application. Very vague averments have been made in the petition stating that the petitioners filed an application before the Tahsildar in the year 1991 for fixing the price and Tahsildar informed the petitioner about the impugned order. A copy of the application filed by the petitioner before District Deputy Collector is not placed on record and also the order passed by the Division Bench is not placed on record. Communication made by the Registrar of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the perusal of the Court shows that a revision application was filed on 21st July 1973 which was rejected on 28th August 1973. In 3 wp482.sxw absence of any material averments explaining the delay from the year 1973 it is not possible to exercise writ jurisdiction for quashing the order passed on 28 th November 1963. There is no explanation for gross delay of 30 years in approaching this Court. 4 In this view of the matter, writ petition is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. JUDGE