1 wp-1913.92 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1913 OF 1992 Shri Shivram Yashwant Thombre. .. Petitioner Vs The Additional Collector, Solapur, & Anr. .. Respondents ­­ Shri N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Rahul S. Kate for the Petitioner. Shri R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondents. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondents. 2. According to the case of the Petitioner, in the year 1943 allotment of land admeasuring 24 acres and 24 Ares has been made to his father on “Eksali” lease basis. The land was subsequently numbered as Gat No.388 which is situated at Village Nerle, Taluka­ Kurduwadi, District – Solapur. Allotment of the land was made in favour of the father of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, after the demise of his father, his name was recorded in the record of right as the Manager of the joint family. 2 wp-1913.92 It is pointed out that sometime in the year 1960, a part of the land admeasuring about 12 acres and 14 Ares has been withdrawn and allotted to a farming society and in the year 1963, 2 acres of land was withdrawn from the possession of the Petitioner. As a result of which, the Petitioner continued to hold land admeasuring 10 acres and 14 Ares. On 30th December, 1987 ( wrongly set out in the Petition as 30th December, 1988 ) on the basis of the order passed by the learned Collector on 2nd April, 1987, the Sub­Divisional Officer passed an order and allotted an area of 60 Ares to the Petitioner out of Gat No.388 (Part) on permanent basis on the terms and conditions incorporated in the said order. It appears that a representation was made by the Petitioner against the said order to various authorities. A communication was issued by a Sub Divisional Officer on 4th July, 1988 to the Petitioner stating that considering the fact that an area of 60 Ares was permanently allotted to the Petitioner, the Collector by an order dated 21st June, 1988 has resumed the remaining area of 3 hectares and 53 Ares in possession of the Petitioner. A request for allotment of 3 Hectares and 53 Ares was rejected by the said communication. An appeal was preferred by the Petitioner. The Additional Collector, Solapur, dismissed the appeal. The first ground on which the Appeal was dismissed is that an appeal against the communication dated 4th July, 1988 was not maintainable. The second ground is that the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was passed on 30th December, 1987 and the appeal was preferred on 21st September, 1989. It was observed that the delay was not explained. A revision application was preferred by the Petitioner before the Additional 3 wp-1913.92 Commissioner. The Revision Application has been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 1991. Hence, the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for challenging the order passed in the Appeal as well as in the Revision. The prayer is for quashing the said order dated 23rd December, 1991 as well as for quashing the order dated 30th December, 1987. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has tendered additional compilation. He pointed out from the additional compilation that the appeal was preferred by the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 30th December, 1987. He pointed out that the appeal was initially filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, which was returned on 11th August, 1988 by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, with liberty to file the same before the appropriate forum. He pointed out that the delay was adequately explained not only in the memorandum of appeal but also in the written argument filed before the learned Collector. He submitted that without considering the merits of the appeal and the explanation for delay, the appeal has been dismissed by the learned Collector. He pointed out that the order dated 21st June, 1988 was communicated on 4th July, 1988 and the appeal was filed before the Commissioner on 9th August, 1988 which was returned for presentation to a proper authority. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. 4 wp-1913.92 4. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned judgment and orders and submitted that no interference be called for. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner reiterated that on plain reading of the memorandum of appeal, the same was against the order dated 30th December, 1987. 5. I have given given careful consideration to the submissions. It appears that the order dated 30th December, 1987 was passed by which the land admeasuring 60 Ares was allotted to the Petitioner on permanent basis. Representations were made by the Petitioner to various authorities for retaining possession of the remaining area which was granted to the Petitioner’s father on Eksali basis. The communication dated 4th July, 1988 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer records that by the Collector’s order dated 21st June, 1988, except the area of 60 Ares, the balance area of 3 Acres and 53 Ares was forfeited. Perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal which is a part of the compilation shows that in Paragraph 9, a specific prayer was made for setting aside the order dated 30th December, 1987 though in Paragraph 6 it is stated that the Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21st June, 1988. It appears that on 9th August, 1988 the appeal was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. On 11th August, 1988, the appeal was returned for presentation to the appropriate authority. The order dated 21st June, 1988 was passed by the learned Collector and the order dated 30th December, 1987 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The very fact that the Additional Commissioner returned the 5 wp-1913.92 Memorandum of Appeal for being presented to the appropriate forum and that the Petitioner accepted the said order shows that the appeal was confined to the order dated 30th December, 1987. 6. The order of the appellate Authority proceeds on the footing that the appeal was presented on 21st September, 1989. It appears that after the Memorandum of Appeal was ordered to be returned on 11th August, 1988, there was a delay on the part of the Petitioner in presenting the appeal to the office of the Collector. Perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal shows that after the order dated 30th December, 1987 was passed, representations were made by the Petitioner to various authorities and by a communication dated 4th July, 1988, the rejection of prayer for retaining the entire land with the Petitioner was communicated. The said communication records that on 21st June, 1988 the learned Collector passed an order of resumption. The grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal are to the effect that the entire land ought to have been allotted to the Petitioner under the order dated 30th December, 1987. It must be noted that in the written arguments filed before the Collector, the aforesaid facts were incorporated and it was contended that the delay may be condoned on the ground that the Advocate for the Petitioner did not inform him that the Memorandum of Appeal was returned by the office of the Commissioner on 11th August, 1988. 7. In the Memorandum of Appeal, there was an explanation as to 6 wp-1913.92 why the Petitioner waited till 9th August, 1988 to prefer an appeal against the order dated 30th December, 1987. In the written arguments, there was further explanation given for the delay from 11th August, 1988 till the lodging of the appeal before the Collector. If the Collector was of the view that the appeal was barred by law of limitation, an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay ought to have been granted. In fact, there was a prayer in the written argument that the appeal should be treated as a Revision, in the event the delay was not condoned. 8. This aspect has not been appreciated even by the Revisional Authority. It must be noted that while admitting the petition for final hearing, this Court has stayed operation of the order dated 30th December, 1987 and the orders passed in the appeal and the Revision. 9. Out of the land held by the Petitioner on Eksali basis, possession of the area of only 60 Ares was confirmed under the order dated 30th December, 1987 and remaining of 3 Hectares and 53 Ares was withdrawn from the Petitioner. Therefore, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the Petitioner to go back to the Collector to satisfy the Collector that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that in view of the interim orders passed by the appellate authority, the revisional authority and this Court, the Petitioner continues to be in possession of the said entire land. 10. Hence, I pass the following order. 7 wp-1913.92 (a) The impugned judgments and order dated 15th February, 1991 and 23rd December, 1991 are quashed and set aside and Appeal No.7 of 1989 is restored to the Court of the Additional Collector. (b) It will be open for the Petitioner to make an application for condonation of delay in preferring the aforesaid appeal within a period of three months from today. If application is not preferred within a period of three months from today, the appeal will stand dismissed. (c) If application for condonation of delay is made, the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. (d) To enable the Petitioner to take appropriate steps, interim relief granted by this Court on 6th August, 2009 will continue to operate for a period of eight weeks from today. 8 wp-1913.92 (e) Rule is partly made absolute on above terms with no orders as to costs. (f) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J)