Dismissed

Dattatrya Eakanath Shinde, Died Thr. L.Rs. Babasaibh and Ors. v. Rajaram Bhagwat Raut and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2013WP/812/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Commissioner's order allowing condonation of delay for filing a revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The court held that no limitation period exists under the code, requiring only reasonable time, and limited knowledge of the judgment to specific respondents, thus dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.

Dattatrya Eakanath Shinde, Died Thr. L.Rs. Babasaibh and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 812.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 812 OF 2013

¶5

Dattatraya Eakanath Shinde - died - Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. V/s Rajaram Bhagwat

¶6

Raut & Ors.

¶7

Office Notes,Office	Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of
Coram,appearances,	................................
Court's orders or	CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.
directions and
Registrar's orders	DATE : 30/01/2013.

¶8

Mr. S.G.Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

The application for condonation of delay filed by the respondent in preferring Revision has been allowed.

¶11

Mr. Jadhavar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 31/05/2005, the Judgment was delivered by the Additional Collector. The present petitioners had filed caveat and the notice of the said caveat was sent to the present respondents. The same was served and thereafter one of the respondents applied for the certified copy and received the same on 31/07/2005. The Revision was filed on 17/01/2007. There was abnormal delay. On false grounds, the delay has been condoned.

¶12

2 W.P. 812.2013

¶13

The respondents stated that they did not get the knowledge of the Judgment and the order passed by the Additional Collector. However, the certified copy obtained by the respondents on 31/07/2005 falsifies the theory put-forth by the respondents. The learned counsel submits that earlier also the application for condonation of delay was rejected and the respondents had filed Writ Petition No. 4193 of 2008 and this Court had directed the revisional authority to consider all the aspects of the matter. But, the revisional authority without considering the facts put-forth by the present petitioners, had allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶14

The matter is with regard to the correction of the revenue record. The Revision is purported to have been filed U/s 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code [ For short, ' M.L.R. Code ' ].

¶15

Section 257 of the M.L.R. Code does not lay down any limitation period in filing Revision. It is trite that when no period of limitation is prescribed, the proceedings have to be filed within a reasonable period. In the first instance, the respondents were not required to file any application for condonation of delay as there is no prescribed period of limitation. This aspect has not been taken into consideration and the application for condonation of delay has been entertained.

¶16

3 W.P. 812.2013

¶17

It appears that one of the respondents had got the copy in July, 2005. However, the knowledge can not be attributed to all the respondents herein, who have filed Revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner has exercised his discretion.

¶18

In view of the fact that no period of limitation is prescribed and in view of the aforesaid conspectus of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

¶19

The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs.

¶20

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶21

KNP/W.P. 812.2013

Dattatrya Eakanath Shinde, Died Thr. L.Rs. Babasaibh and Ors. v. Rajaram Bhagwat Raut and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatrya Eakanath Shinde, Died Thr. L.Rs. Babasaibh and Ors. v. Rajaram Bhagwat Raut and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs M/S New Maharashtra Sand Suppliers

Manohar S/Osridhar Bhat Died through Lrs Kamalkar Vs Chandrabai S/O Shamlal Agrawal

Akbarshah Hussenshah and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rajendra Devidas Kate Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Digambar Ramkrushna Patil Vs Shrawan Ramchandra Mahajan and Ors.

Abhiman@Abhimanyu Krishna Pawar Vs Manik Sahebrao Lamkane