1 WP 6926-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6926 OF 2024 ‘Shri Gurudeo Sewa Mandal’, Nagpur, a registered public trust through its President Shri Ashok Baburao Yawale, Age : 63 Years, Occu. : Retired, R/o. Agyaram Devi Chowk, Nagpur. …. Petitioner VERSUS 1. Shri Janardhan Baburao Bothe, Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Shri Gurudeo Sewa Mandal, Mozri, Tah. Tiwasa, Dist. Amravati. 2. The Tahasildar (Nazul), Collector Office, Nagpur. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. …. Respondents …. Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.D. Abhyankar Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. A.S. Dhore AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3-State : Mrs. M.S. Naik …. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. Dated : 21st SEPTEMBER 2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:12627 2 WP 6926-2024 2. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.06.2024, passed by Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. By way of the said order, the Additional Commissioner has rejected the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner herein. The delay was caused in filing appeal challenging the order dated 19.01.2021, passed by respondent No.2 Tahasildar (Nazul), Collector Officer, Nagpur. 3. Mr. Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner takes me through the impugned order, as also the application for condonation of delay. It is his submission that the Additional Commissioner has not considered the matter in its correct perspective, which has resulted in passing the impugned order. He submits that instead of a pedantic approach, a liberal approach ought to have been adopted by the said authority. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 4. Per contra, Mr. Dhore, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner herein was well aware about the fact of execution of lease in favour of respondent No.1. He points me out a communication at page 43, which is of dated 21.03.2022, addressed to the Ganeshpeth Police Station, Nagpur, regarding the extension of lease of the subject property. It is, therefore, his submission that the 3 WP 6926-2024 petitioner was well aware about the extension of lease and therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the respondent to allege otherwise. As far as the application for condonation of delay is concerned, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the reasons as stated in para.2 of the application for condonation of delay are vague in nature and no details of whatsoever in nature have been spelt out in the said paragraph. 5. With the able assistance of the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, I have gone through the record of the matter. It seems that the Additional Commissioner has not taken into consideration the reasons spelt out in para.2 of the application for condonation of delay. A judicial notice ought to have been taken of the fact that, in view of the nationwide pandemic, which receded only in the month of February 2022, the Additional Commissioner ought to have adopted a liberal approach while considering the application. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. However, the application for condonation of delay prima facie seems to be slipshod in nature and lacking in material particulars as required in law. 6. The order dated 10.06.2024, passed by Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, is quashed and set-aside. 4 WP 6926-2024 7. The matter is relegated back to Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, to reconsider the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner herein. 8. Needless to mention here that the said authority would grant an opportunity to all the agitating parties to file an additional affidavit/material on record in support of their individual contentions. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the matter and comments are limited to the application for condonation of delay and not on the appeal itself and therefore, it is for the Additional Commissioner to decide the same. 10. The parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.1 undertake to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 06.10.2026. 11. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. [ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE ] JUDGE asd