(1) 18 wp 8046-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 8046 OF 2026 Gajanan Shreekrushna Mohokar And Anr. vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Akot And Others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.B. Dhore, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. C.A. Lokhande, AGP for respondent/State. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 06.10.2026 Heard. 2. In view of the order being passed below, notice to remaining respondents is dispensed with. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners points me out the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, wherein an enormous delay of 27 years has been condoned by the said authority by order of a line. The order, obviously, is without any reason. Not only this, the said authority has fixed the matter for final hearing/argument today, i.e. 06.10.2026. As far as facts are concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed me out that two daughters of late Vamanrao Ramchandra Mohokar, namely Nandatai Dhyandeo Mangle and Babitai Maroti Kokate, out of their own volition, relinquished their share in the immovable property in favor of their three real brothers, namely Vishnu, late Srikrishna and late Anantrao, all sons of Wamanrao Mohokar. The relinquishment deed was executed on 20.05.1998. Accordingly, entries were taken in the revenue records. However, thereafter, in the year 2026, and (2) 18 wp 8046-2026 more particularly on 02.07.2026, those two sisters chose to file an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer under the provisions of Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Obviously, the said appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The said delay of more than 27 years has condoned by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide its order dated 22.09.2026. The said order is impugned in the present petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners points me out that, as can be seen from the impugned order, the order does not spell out any reason, much less a justifiable one, for condoning the said delay. It was normally expected by a quasi-judicial authority, like the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass a reasoned order taking into consideration the extent of delay, and the objection raised to it by the present petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, has rightly pointed out a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers, and more particularly, paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 thereof, which are reproduced here under for the sake of brevity. “13. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non- recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party (3) 18 wp 8046-2026 and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. 14. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders.” 5. From the dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment, it therefore follows that the principles, that the concept of natural justice has two ingredients: firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action (4) 18 wp 8046-2026 should be given a notice and should also be granted a hearing; and the authority should give reasons for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the second limb of the proposition as enunciated by the Supreme Court has not been followed in the present case. 6. In that view of the matter, following order is passed: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 22.09.2026 of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Akot, on order sheet in Revenue Case No. RTS.-59/WARULA/93/2025-26, thereby condoning the delay, is quashed and set aside. iii) The matter is again relegated to the said authority to decide the application for condonation of delay in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra. iv) The parties undertake to appear before the said authority on 15.10.2026, without any formal notice in that regard. v) The petitioner would appear on 15.10.2026 and apprise the Sub Divisional Officer, who in turn would issue notices to the other respondents and then proceed to hear them on merits, and decide the matter in accordance with law. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 18:18:24