(1) 28 wp 5112-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5112 OF 2024 Premsingh Pandurang Jadhav Vs. Shersingh Hirasingh Rathod and others - - – - - - - - - – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------- - - - - - Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for petitioner Shri B.J. Lonare, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Shri. B.M. Lonare, AGP for respondent/State CORAM : SMT M.S. JAWALKAR, J. DATE : 28.02.2025 Heard learning Counsel for the petitioner and learned for the respondent. The petition is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector, Washim, dated 10/08/2023. It is the contention of the petitioner that he filed proceeding before the SDO, Wardha, under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code along with condonation of delay application for expunging the fraudulent entry before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO). It is his contention that his grandfather Shri Hariram Jadhav was in occupation and legal possession of ancestral agricultural land at village Vaigaul. He has purchased half portion of land from Gangaram Ramnarayan for total consideration of Rs.700/- on 02/01/1957 and remaining (2) 28 wp 5112-2024 portion of the land survey No. 75 gat No. 661 was of Shri Chaganlal Ramnarayan. The said land was in cultivation of Hariram and in possession by way of ‘Kul’ under Bombay Tenancy Act, Hariram become the owner by way of possession. Thus, Hariram become the owner of total 12.74 HR. After the death of Hariram, his children inherited the said property. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1, fraudulently made the mutation entry at Sr. No. 728 of transferring the possession of land of 8.14 HR in his favor. Again by mutation entry No. 765 transferred the land by way of partition deed in favor of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. children of respondent No. 1. There is another mutation entry at Sr. Nos. 828 and 765, thereby, transferred the possession of land in fever of Sitabai Chauhan, in exchange of her land. It is his contention that in the month of January, 2023, the petitioner came to know about the Regular Civil Suit No.04/2009, pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division in between Sitabai Chauhan and Dhruv Parasram Rathod. After verification of the revenue record, petitioner came to know that the respondents have fraudulently mutated their names. He filed application under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code along with condonation of delay application for expunging the fraudulent entries before the SDO. 2. The SDO allowed the condonation of delay application vide order dated 16/06/2023. The respondent herein being aggrieved by the said order preferred revision (3) 28 wp 5112-2024 under Section 257 before the Additional Collector, Washim. The Additional Collector, Washim, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the SDO. The said order is the subject matter of the present petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention to various mutation entries and contended that before SDO, sufficient opportunity was granted to the respondent to place on record documents of title. Secondly, without their being any declaration by any Competent Court, the respondents are claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent drawn my attention to the entry No. 728, from which, it revealed that Kashiram Hariram Jadhav consented to show in the revenue record that Shersing Hirasingh Rathod is having cultivator possession on survey No. 75, area 8.14 HR. Therefore, it is claimed that there are no fraudulent entries. By the consent of the petitioner, name of his father entered on 15/12/1993. He has also claimed that there is no explanation why the application is not moved within limitation. It is contended that in view of Section 250 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, limitation is 60 days to file appeal. 5. I have heard both the parties at length. Perused impugned orders and other documents. On perusal of order, condoning the delay is reproduced as under : (4) 28 wp 5112-2024 FROM (see Paragraph chapter) In the office of sub Division Magistrate Karanja Date of Place of order of Proceeding Order or Proceeding signature of presiding office Signature of parties of Pleaders Where necessary the initials of the clerks complying with the orders and the date of such compliance 1 3 13/02/2023 अपिलाቕኍ ቚኔ मिሺ ग डुरंग जाधव रं. वळी ता. मनोरं पिजा.वपिम ाሱनो पिवरू्ቍ गरंअपिलाቕኍ रंिሺ ग पि रंिሺ ग रंठोडु + इतारं 3 रं वईग$ळी ता. मनोरं पिजा.वपिम ाሱनो म$जा वईग$ळी ाሱ ቕኍला व% नो 75 गट नो 661 मपिधला 8.14 आरं चा फरंफरं क 765, 832 रंदद, करंणे बाबाता ्ቤपिቕኍता उनो म रंश्ट जामनो म 2ला अपिधपिनोाሱम 1966 चा कलाम बाबाता ्ቤपिቕኍता उनो म रंश््቏ जामनो म 2ला अपिधपिनोाሱम 1966 चा कलाम 246 नो रं अपिला दखला क ल्ाሱवरूनो रू करंण्ाሱता आला आ . ቚኔकरंणे जाकरंणे करं, गरंअपिलाቕኍनो नोट कढा. .ता.9/03/2023 14.3.23 25.04.23 उपिवभागाሱ दडुपिधकरं करंजा. 25/04/23 ቚኔकरंणेता आजा अपिलाቕኍ9 जारं गरंअजा9दरंताफ% अॅ;डु. पिनोला टला इाሱनो मम ऑफ अपिअरंन् दरं क ला. ቚኔकरंणे ाሱሹኍ?वरं ठो- (5) 28 wp 5112-2024 us-rk 23/05 ቚኔकरंणेता nksUgh i{k gtj vkgsr izdj.kkr foyac ekQhps vtkZoj xSj vtZnkjkauh ;qDrhokn dsyk] ys[kh mRrj nk[ky dsys] vihykFkhZ ;kauh lq/nk ;qDrhokn dsyk] izdj.k foyac ekQhps vtkZjhy fu.kZ;klkBh Bso.;kr ;srs- us-rk- 16/06 16/06 ቚኔकरंणेता vihykFkh जारं xSj vtZnkj XkSjgtj xSjvtZnkjkP;k tckc n;k;yk o vfiykFkhZ g;kapk rksaZMh ;qDrhokn ,sdyk- izdj.k uSlfxZd U;k; rRokpk voyacu gks.;klkBh izdj.kkrhy foyac ekQ dj.;kr ;srks- izdj.k ;qDrhoknkyk- us-rk- 4.7.2023 6. Even roznama one page 62-B shows that he has heard both the parties. The delay was condoned in the interest of principle of natural justice. This order is challenged before the Additional Collector vide Revision No.16/2023. Additional Collector after considering the facts allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by SDO dated 16/06/2023. It is observed in the body of order that there were around 29 years delay in filing application. However, SDO has condoned the delay only on the ground that to meet the principles of natural justice delay has been condoned. It is observed by the Additional Collector that while condoning the delay, SDO has not given any reasoning for condoning the delay. He has not discussed on what ground delay has been condoned, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. In my considered opinion, there is no dispute that order passed by the SDO, is patently erroneous and it is (6) 28 wp 5112-2024 rightly set aside. However, in my considerate opinion, Additional Collector ought to have remanded the matter back. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector, petitioner herein filed second revision application before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. However, the same was rejected on the ground that it is the authority that is Divisional Commissioner is not having any jurisdiction that jurisdiction lies with the Government. There was no any appeal is filed before the Government but present petition is filed. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the Additional Collector to the extent of setting aside order passed by the SDO is required to be uphold. However, this Court further orders that the matter is required to be remitted back to the SDO for its fresh consideration. As the order passed by the SDO, is patently cryptic, without any reasoning and erroneous. There are no any reason given for condoning the huge delay of 29 years. 8. Both the parties to appear before the learned SDO, on 10/03/2025 at 11:00 a.m. and learned SDO hear application for condonation of delay afr esh and pass appropriate order with reason. 9. All the questions and grounds are expressly kept open. 10. Writ Petition stands disposed in the above terms. (SMT M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Jayashree..