1 wp 4365.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4365 OF 2011 Usman Gani Shaikh Yakub, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Rasalpur, Tq. Raver, District Jalgaon. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik Division, Nashik, Near Old C.B.S., Sharanpur Road, Nashik - 422 002. 3. Superintendent of Land Records, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. City Survey Officer, Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. .. .. Respondents Shri Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. P. Phatake, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD AUGUST, 2011. 2 wp 4365.11 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioner had filed an appeal before the S. L. R. challenging the order of the year 1981. The S. L. R. dismissed the appeal on merits. The petitioner preferred second appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records who also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. 3. Shri Gandhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, no opportunity was given to the petitioner when the entry was deleted in the year 1981. The petitioner had no knowledge and after getting the knowledge had filed the proceedings before the S. L. R. The S. L. R. had considered the matter on merits, but the Deputy Director of Land Records has not considered the merits of the matter and has rejected the appeal on the ground that there is delay in filing the appeal. 4. Shri Phatake, the learned A. G. P. submits that even appeal before the S. L. R. was not maintainable without an application for condonation of delay. If there is delay in filing the 3 wp 4365.11 appeal, the authority cannot consider the appeal unless and until the application for condonation of delay is filed and considered on merits. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not filed an application for condonation of delay, the authorities did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal at all. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. The record nowhere discloses that the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay while filing the appeal before the S. L. R. In absence of an application for condonation of delay, the appeal could not have been considered on merits. In the light of above, I quash and set aside the judgments and orders passed by the S. L. R. and the Deputy Director Land Records and direct the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay before the S. L. R. who shall consider the said application for condonation of delay on its own merits and it is only if the S. L. R. is satisfied that sufficient grounds are set out and comes to the conclusion to condone the delay, then only the S. L. R. shall deal with the matter on merits. The petitioner shall file such application for condonation of delay before the S. L. R. within four weeks from today. 4 wp 4365.11 6. The Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11