1 of 4 921-CA.6609.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 921 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6609 OF 2026 IN WP/6416/2022 BALU MAHADU GADKAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Mr. Chandrakant V. Thombre, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. N. J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4, 7 to 11 in WP is Absent. … AND WRIT PETITION NO.6416 OF 2022 BALU MAHADU GADKAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By this civil application, the Applicants are seeking review of order dated 27.01.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6416 of 2022. 3. Mr. Chandrakant V. Thombre, learned Advocate for the Applicants submits that this Court directed the Applicants/Petitioners to file revision before the State Government. The short controversy arising in the petition was that the Deputy Director of Land Records 2026:BHC-AUG:33224 2 of 4 921-CA.6609.2026 vide its order dated 05.05.2022 rejected the appeal filed by the Applicants on the ground that there is no provision to appeal under Section 252(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. But, infact, the said appeal was filed against rejection of application to condone the delay. This Court disposed the Writ Petition No.6416 of 2022 by directing the Applicants to file revision before the State Government. However, while passing the order dated 27.01.2026, the aspect that delay had already been condoned and the appeal had been admitted by the Superintendent of Land Records was not brought to the notice of this Court. Due to inadvertance and oversight, the factual position was not brought before the Court. He further submits that this Court in Writ Petition No.6966 of 2017 decided on 13.02.2019, while considering identical issue, interpreted Section 252 of the Code. 4. Mr. S. S. Dande, learned AGP for the Respondent-State, supports the order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Respondent No.2– Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad and prays to reject the present civil application. 5. Having gone through the submissions advanced and the judgment cited by the learned Advocate for the Applicants, it is clear that the issue involved in the present application has already been decided by this Court. In paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the said judgment, this Court has observed thus:- 3 of 4 921-CA.6609.2026 “5. Section 252 of the MLR Code reads as under : '' 252. No appeal shall lie from an order_ (a) admitting an appeal or an application for review under section 251; (b) rejecting an application for revision or review; or (c) granting or rejecting an application for stay. '' 6. Having regard to section 252 (a), it appears that appeal is not provided against admission of appeal or an application for review under section 251 of the MLR Code. It thus appears that appeal against decision of condonation of delay is not precluded.” 6. In Writ Petition No.6966 of 2017, this Court had came to the conclusion that under Section 252, an application for condonation of delay is not precluded from appealing. Adopting the same view, I am inclined to recall the order dated 27.01.2026, thereby allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Land records, Aurangabad. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER (i) The Writ Petition No.6416 of 2022 is partly allowed. (ii) The order dated 05.05.2022 in Case/Consolidation /Appeal/KV-213/2022 passed by Respondent No.2- Deputy Director of Land Record, Aurangabad is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The matter is remanded to Respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad to decide afresh 4 of 4 921-CA.6609.2026 on its own merits. (iv) All points are kept open for the parties. (v) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef