1 WP 4089.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4089 OF 2011 1. Ramswaroop S/o Chothmal Chandak Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Business & Agril., R/o : Kacchi Bazar, Parbhani, Dist.: Parbhani. 2. Dr. Sunil S/o Chothmal Chandak Age : 36 Yrs., Occ. Medical Practitioner R/o : Kacchi Bazar, Parbhani, Dist.: Parbhani. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Munjaji S/o Ramrao Bharose Age : 43 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Asola, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. 2. Prabhakar S/o Ramrao Bharose Age : 38 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Asola, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. 3. Kashibai W/o Ramrao Bharose Age : 58 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Asola, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. 4. Rekha W/o Bharat Dhage Age : Major, Occ. Household, 2 WP 4089.2011 - [ J ] R/o : Pimpalgaon (Dhage), Tq. & Dist.: Parbhani. 5. Rangnath S/o Keshavrao Bharose Age : 44 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Asola, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. 6. Vishwanath S/o Keshavrao Bharose Age : 37 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Asola, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. 7. Shivaji S/o Keshavrao Bharose Age : 34 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Asola, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. 8. Manik S/o Keshavrao Bharose Age : 30 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Asola, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S.Rathi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. M.P.Kale, Advocate for the Resp.Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10/08/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. At the out set, Mr. Rathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent nos. 5 to 8 are formal party as far as the present Writ Petition is concerned as they are also the co-respondents along with the petitioners and notice to them is not necessary. 3 WP 4089.2011 - [ J ] 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. The present respondent nos. 1 to 4 have filed Appeal before the District Superintendent of Land Records, Parbhani challenging the sub division made in the year 1967-68, so also the area determined in the consolidation proceedings in respect of G.Nos. 53, 54 and 55. Along with the said Appeal, the petitioners also filed an application for condonation of delay of 33 years. The present petitioners opposed the said application, so also filed independent application challenging the maintainability of the Appeal. The S.L.R., Parbhani vide order dated 26/4/2011 allowed the application for condonation of delay and rejected the application filed by the petitioners regarding maintainability of the Appeal. The same has been assailed in the present Writ Petition. 5. Mr. Rathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the authority has not given any reason for rejecting the application of the petitioners. The contentions raised by the petitioners were not at all 4 WP 4089.2011 - [ J ] discussed in the whole body of the order and only in the operative order, it is stated that the application filed by the petitioners is rejected, so also has not given any reasons for condonation of delay of 33 years. Only on the ground of principles of natural justice, the delay is condoned. The learned counsel contends that the authority dealing with the said Appeal was required to address on the merits of the application and the contentions raised by the parties. 6. Mr. Kale, the learned counsel for the present respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that the respondents have put-forth detail grounds in the application for the condonation of delay. From the date of knowledge, the Appeal was within limitation. According to the learned counsel, the authority is required to decide the matter on merits. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned order. 8. The authority has not considered the grounds put-forth by the present respondent nos. 1 to 4 in an application for condonation of delay and only on the principles of natural justice, has condoned the delay. 5 WP 4089.2011 - [ J ] 9. A quasi judicial authority dealing with the matter is expected to give reasons. The reasons are the life line of any quasi judicial order. It depicts the application of mind of the authority. The order impugned is bereft of any reasons. The application filed by the present petitioners challenging the maintainability of the Appeal itself is rejected, no whisper is made in the body of the order and only in the operative part, it is stated that the said application is rejected. The authority is required to consider the sufficient cause while entertaining the application for condonation of delay, which in the present application is not at all considered. 10. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the parties are relegated before the District Superintendent of Land Records, Parbhani, who shall decide the application filed by the respondents for condonation of delay and the application filed by the present petitioners challenging the maintainability of the Appeal afresh on its own merits after giving opportunity to the parties. 11. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4089.2011 - [ J ] 6 WP 4089.2011 - [ J ]