1 Writ Petition No.8793 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8793 OF 2011 1. Shivlal S/o.Bhaulal Lahire, Age-55 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Khadkeshwar, Opp.Anjali Talkies, Behind Mewad Hotel, Aurangabad, 2. Ramesh S/o.Bhaulal Lahire, Age-50 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Khadkeshwar, Opp.Anjali Talkies, Aurangabad. 3. Prakash S/o.Bhaulal Lahire, Age-46 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Khadkeshwar, Opp.Anjali Talkies, Aurangabad. 4. Pandurang S/o.Bhaulal Lahire, Age-40 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Khadkeshwar, Opp.Anjali Talkies, Aurangabad. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mantralalya, Mumbai, 2. The Superintendent of Land Records, Aurangabad. 3. Yasinsaheb S/o.Mohammadsaheb, Age-65 years, Occu-Retired, R/o.Asefiya Colony, House No.149, Tal.And Dist. Aurangabad, 2 Writ Petition No.8793 of 2011 4. Shaikh Habib S/o.Mohammadsaheb, Age-61 years, Occu-Retired, R/o.Rohila Galli, Devdi Bazar, Tal. And Dist. Aurangabad, 5. Shaikh Munir S/o.Mohammadsaheb, Age-57 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Rohila Galli, Devdi Bazar, Tal. And Dist. Aurangabad, 6. Shaikh Mehaboob S/o.Mohammadsaheb, Sinde deceased through LR’s. 6A. Shaikh Rashid Shaikh Mehboob, Age-50 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Roshan Gate, Aurangabad, 6B. Shaikh Farooq Shaikh Mehaboob, Age-48 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Priyadarshani Colony, Aurangabad. 6C. Shaikh Rauf Shaikh Mehboob, Age-42 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Priyadarshani Colony, Aurangabad. 6D. Shaikh Rais Shaikh Mehboob, Age-44 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Priyadarshani Colony, Aurangabad. 6E. Shaikh Idris Shaikh Mehboob, Age-39 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Priyadarshani Colony, Aurangabad. 7. Shaikh Yusuf S/o.Shaikh Mohammadsaheb, 3 Writ Petition No.8793 of 2011 Since deceased through LR’s. 7A. Shaikh Isaq Shaikh Ibrahim, Age-41 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Begumpura, Aurangabad, 7B. Shaikh Ejaz Shaikh Ibrahim, Age-38 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Begumpura, Aurangabad, 7C. Shaikh Istiyaq Shaikh Ibrahim, Age-27 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Begumpura, Aurangabad, 8. Shaikh Yusuf S/o.Shaikh Mohammadsaheb, since deceased, through LR’s. 8A. Shaikh Rafiq Shaikh Yusuf, Age-35 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Roshangate, Aurangabad, Respondents no.3 to 8-A, Through General Power of Attorney 1. Shaikh Raise S/o.Shaikh Mehboob, Age-43 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Plot No.14, Priyadarshani Colony, Aurangabad, 2. Mohammad Azim S/o.Mohammad Yasin, Age-36 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Asefiya Colony, Aurangabad, 9. City Survey Officer, Aurangabad, 10. Parwatibai W/o.Bhaulal Lahire, Age- years, Occu-Household, R/o.Khadkeshwar, Opp.Anjali Talkies, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS 4 Writ Petition No.8793 of 2011 Mr.A.P.Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1,2 and 9. MR.A.M.Gaikwad, learned counsel for respondents no.3 to 8. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 19/12/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have questioned the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records on 31/10/2011, by which application for condonation of delay of about 21 years was condoned. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. It is not under dispute that the respondents no.3 to 8 herein have filed an appeal u/s. 247 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the Supdt. of Land Records, Aurangabad in respect of the mutation entry dated 12/04/1990 in the City Survey Record, . Apparently, there was delay of about 20 years and some months in questioning the correctness of the mutation entry no.4641/90 dated 15/03/1990. Entry carried out on 12/04/1990 by the Inquiry Officer in respect of property survey no.8512 in connection with Inquiry no.67 and 71. Alongwith said application, application for 5 Writ Petition No.8793 of 2011 condonation of delay was also filed. It appears that after filing of the said appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay, requisite notices were served on the petitioners and respondent no.10 to this writ petition. They have filed their appearance and after hearing the parties on 29/11/2010, order to maintain status-quo in respect of the entries in the revenue record was passed by the Superintendent, Land Records. It appears that for one reason or other, since then, the application for condonation of delay was not decided till 31/10/2011. It appears that on 31/10/2011, when the matter was on board of Superintendent, Land Records, respondents, who are the petitioners herein, were present, but their Advocate was not present and he requested that their advocate may take some time to appear. It appears that the said application was decided by the Superintendent of Land Records in absence of learned counsel for respondents by observing that if the delay is condoned, it will not affect the rights of the parties and will not cause any prejudice to the parties also. This conclusion was drawn by the Superintendent, Land Records, relying on the ratio of the Apex Court in the matter of Land Acquisition Officer, Anant Nag and another versus Mst.Katiji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353. The order impugned is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners would urge that the observations of the Apex Court in the matter (cited supra), are not applicable to the present case, as according to him, while observing 6 Writ Petition No.8793 of 2011 the ratio of the Supreme Court rulling (cited supra) it reveals that there was only 5 days delay in preferring the appeal by the Government Officials against the impugned order, but on technical ground, that application for condonation of delay was rejected by the competent authority. Learned counsel would further urge that there is difference between condonation of delay of 5 days and of 20 years. He would further urge that if the party concerned remains silent over its rights for years together, then certainly some rights would accrue in favour of the opposite party and if those rights are not claimed within stipulated time, then certainly it would cause prejudice to the opposite party. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3 to 8 supports the order impugned in this writ petition. As against this, learned A.G.P. left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar, one fact is clear that the delay of 20 years was caused in preferring the appeal about the mutation entries effected in the Land Records. If there is delay of 20 years, then such delay required to be explained sufficiently and while condoning such in-ordinate delay, the authority condoning such delay, is supposed to record the cogent reasons to condone such delay. In the order impugned, reasoning is not recorded by the Authority to condone such in-ordinate delay. Even though learned counsel for respondents no.3 to 8 supports the order impugned, but he is also unable to satisfy the Court about the observations of the 7 Writ Petition No.8793 of 2011 Superintendent, Land Records, recorded while condoning the delay. Per contra, as the order is lacking reasoning to condone the delay, it required to be quashed and set aside. 6. In the circumstances, it is necessary to remit the matter back to the Superintendent, Land Records with directions to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh after hearing both the parties, within the period of 2 months from the date of receipt of writ of this order in accordance with Law. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 6. Rule thus made absolute. 7. Parties to act on the authenticate copy of this judgment. Learned A.G.P. undertakes this Court to intimate this order to the Superintendent, Land Records. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC.2011/wp8793-11