1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1654 OF 2005. Bapu S/o Rama Randive and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 29.06.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Latur, in Misc.Application No.146/1995, whereby and whereunder, their prayer for condonation of delay 2 caused in filing of the appeal came to be rejected. 2. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have been allotted surplus land which was previously owned by deceased Respondent NO.2. The deceased Respondent No.2 challenged the allotment of the land to the petitioners by filing suit (RCS No.541/76). He claimed declaration that the order of Tribunal of determination of surplus land, the order of the MRT and the order rendered in Spl.C.A.No.3166/76 by the High Court may be declared as null and void. He also claimed perpetual injunction. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit by granting prayers including the prayer for declaration of the judgment and order of this Court as null and void. Thus, the entire process of declaration of the surplus land under provisions of Maharashtra Ceiling on Holdings Act, was upsetted. 3. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said judgment of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Latur in (RCS No.541/76). There was 3 delay of 453 days in filing of the appeal. The delay was explained by them. They submitted that their advocate did not inform them about the adverse decision of the Civil Court. They further submitted that they are poor persons and were required to approach the Appellate Court through Legal Aid Services Authority. They urged to condone the delay caused in filing of the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, however, held that the delay was caused due to inaction and was not properly explained. The application was, therefore, dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel and on going through the impugned judgment and order rendered in Misc.Application No.146/95, it is manifestly clear that the learned Additional District Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioners are landless persons to whom the surplus land was allegedly allotted. It is but natural that due to poverty, they were unable to prefer the appeal by engaging advocate. One of the criteria to be considered in such a matter is to examine whether it would be just and proper to 4 give an opportunity to the party, prima facie, who has suffered injustice. The petitioners were allottees of the surplus land of the Respondent No.21 and the decision rendered by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal was upheld upto the High Court level. Obviously, there was good case available to them. They are socially and economically backward persons. The access to justice could not denied to them only because of delay. They explained that due to lack of resources, they are required to get assistance from the Legal Aid Services Authority. It is true that they had engaged one Shri Vasantrao Deshpande, as an advocate in the trial Court but it does not mean that they were able to secure assistance of any advocate at the appellate stage. The petitioners were not likely to gain anything by committing willful delay in filing of the appeal. It is probable that Shri Vasantrao Deshpande, had represented major of the defendants and, therefore, could not inform each of them out of 25 defendants in the suit. That apart, it can not be overlooked that some times an advocate may accept the brief as social 5 commitment and may work in such a matter without charging much fees but at one point of time, he may not continue to do the gratuitous work. The ground realities of the legal profession and the difficulties of the masses particularly of those who belong to lower strata of the society should not be overlooked while considering such application. In this view of the matter,the impugned order is quite unsustainable and arbitrary. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The application be deemed as allowed and the delay is condoned. The first appellate Court to admit the appeal for consideration and proceed with the same. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp165405