ca846.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.846 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST.NO.38512 OF 2010 WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST. NO.38512 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8723 OF 2010 Prabhakar s/o Chandrakant Khadke, Age-65 years, Occu:Retired, R/o-Jamkhed, Tq-Ambad, Dist-Jalna. ...APPLICANT/APPELLANT. VERSUS 1) The Dy. Director of Land Record, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad. 2) Ramesh s/o Rajabhau @ Pralhadrao Khadke, Age-40 years, Occu:Agril., 3) Krishna s/o Rajabhau @ Pralhadrao Khadke, Age-30 years, Occu:Agril., Both are R/o-Hudco, N-11, A-Sector, House No.134/4, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ca846.11 2 ... Shri.S.A. Deshmukh Advocate for Applicant/ Appellant. Shri.K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri.V.D. Hon Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Applicant is original Petitioner in the proceeding of Writ Petition No.8723 of 2010 which was filed against the order dated 30th August, 2010 passed by the Deputy Director, Land Records. 3. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that delay occurred in filing the Appeal be condoned. On merits, the learned counsel ca846.11 3 submits that delay has been condoned by the learned Single Judge, contrary to the settled principles. It was submitted that Respondents suppressed certain facts from the Court and the authority below. The counsel further submits that the Applicant was not heard by the Deputy Director of Land Records. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records and the learned Single Judge of this Court. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the impugned orders. We find that the Deputy Director of Land Records has exercised his jurisdiction according to the facts of the case. The learned Single Judge has condoned the delay by imposing cost on the Respondents. We condone the delay in filing the Letters Patent ca846.11 4 Appeal. There is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. [T.V. NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/AUG11