6.wp.3473.2025 Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3473 OF 2025 PETITIONER :- Sau. Rekhadevi Rajesh Agrawal, Aged about 63 years, Occ.: Housewife and farmer, R/o Opp. Agrawal Petrol Pump, Ner Parsopant, Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1) Pandurang s/o Purushottam Pande, Aged about 76 years, Occ.: Retired, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Ner Parsopant, Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal. 2) The Hon’ble Minister, Department of Revenue, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3) Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. 4) Additional Collector, Darwha, Tq. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal. 5) Sub Divisional Officer, Darwha, Tq. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal. 6) The Tahsildar, Ner, Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal. 7) Chief Officer, Ner Nababpur Nagar Parishad, Ner Parsopant, Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal. 8) Deputy Superintendent Land Records Office, Ner Parsopant, Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. D.V. Sapkal, A.G.P. for Respondent/State. Mr. N.A. Chwhan, Advocate for respondent No.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2026:BHC-NAG:9615 6.wp.3473.2025 Judgment.odt 2 CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 27/07/2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. The present petition takes exception to order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Minister in Case No.Appeal- 2024/Case No.139/J-9. Although the proceeding is titled as appeal, it is, in fact, a revision. The order passed by the Hon’ble Minister indicates that it is passed under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which deals revisional jurisdiction. 3. The controversy between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is in relation to 0.11 H.R. land, which according to the petitioner is a part of Gat No.218/1 owned by them and according to respondent No.1 is a government land. The respondent No.1 claims to be in possession of a portion of around 3000 sq.ft. in the said land. Land bearing Gat No.218 was initially owned by one Shantabai, mother in law of the petitioner. The total extent of this land was 1.99 H.R. It appears that the said land was divided in two portions i.e. Gat No.218/1, admeasuring 1.59 H.R. and Gat No.218/2, admeasuring 0.40 H.R. An order of non-agricultural 6.wp.3473.2025 Judgment.odt 3 assessment came to be passed with respect to 0.40 H.R. land bearing Gat No.218/2 on 12.04.1985. The wife of respondent No.1 has purchased two plots bearing Nos.9 and 10 in the layout in Gat No.218/2. The petitioner had applied for non-agricultural assessment with respect to land bearing Gat No.218/1. The said application was initially allowed vide order dated 07.03.2006 in which 0.11 H.R. land, which is the subject matter of the present dispute was recorded as “Pot Kharab”. This 0.11 H.R. land was thereafter recorded as Government land in the revenue record. 4. The petitioner thereafter applied for area correction with respect to the said order dated 07.03.2006, which came to be allowed vide order dated 10.07.2013. By the said order dated 10.07.2013, the said area of 0.11 H.R. is included as open space in layout of Gat No.218/1 owned by the petitioner. This order dated 10.07.2013 came to be challenged by respondent No.1 by filing appeal under Section 247 before the Additional Collector. Since there is a delay, a separate application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The Additional Collector, Yavatmal, has rejected the said application vide order dated 30.01.2023 passed in Revenue Appeal Case No.1/NAA-48/2021-22, Village Ner, Tah. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal. 6.wp.3473.2025 Judgment.odt 4 5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.01.2023, respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, being Revision Application No.60/NAA-48/Ner/Dist. Yavatmal/2023 which came to be rejected vide order dated 28.06.2024. Respondent No.1 preferred second revision before the State Government which came to be registered as Case No.Appeal-2024/Case No.139/J-9. The said second revision came to be allowed by the Hon’ble Minister by impugned order dated 13.05.2025. The Hon’ble Minister has recorded that while passing order dated 10.07.2013, it was necessary for the Sub-Divisional Officer to afford opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1, he being owner of adjoining land. The Hon’ble Minister has recorded that it is a settled legal principle that a liberal approach should be adopted by dealing with the application for condonation of delay. 6. Perusal of order passed by all three authorities will indicate that while the Additional Collector has rejected the application without recording any cogent reasons, the Additional Commissioner has confirmed the same by a non-speaking order. 7. Likewise, the Hon’ble Minister has also merely recorded that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay 6.wp.3473.2025 Judgment.odt 5 liberal approach should be adopted. Apart from this, it is recorded that it is necessary to issue notice to the owner of adjoining land before passing of order dated 10.07.2013. Perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister also does not indicate any finding recorded with respect to date or tentative period when respondent No.1 gathered knowledge about the impugned order dated 10.07.2013. The Hon’ble Minister ought to have appreciated that the delay in filing appeal is more than eight years. The issue of locus of respondent No.1 to challenge the order also should have been considered. 8. In that view of the matter, order passed by the Hon’ble Minister is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. However, at the same time, the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner have also not dealt with the application for condonation of delay properly. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is necessary to remand the matter back to the Additional Collector to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh. In view of the above, Writ Petition is partly allowed in the following terms:- (a) Order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue), Government of Maharashtra, in Case No. 6.wp.3473.2025 Judgment.odt 6 Appeal -2024/Case No.139/J-9; order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal; in Revenue Appeal Case No.1/NAA-48/2021-22, Village Ner, Tah. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal and order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in Revision Application No.60/NAA-48/Ner/Dist. Yavatmal/2023, are quashed and set aside. (b) The Additional Collector is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. 10. It will be open to the parties to supplement their pleadings if they so desire. The Additional Collector shall also deal with the issue of locus of respondent No.1 to challenge the impugned order dated 10.07.2013. Parties to appear before the Additional Collector on 10.08.2026. The Additional Collector is requested to decide the application for condonation of delay as expeditiously as possible and if possible before 30.09.2026. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) C.L. Dhakate