1 23. CAS 586.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.8966 OF 2026 Tarachand R. Varma Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. M. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S. C. Joshi, AGP for non-applicant/respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 02.09.2026. . The present application is filed by the applicant - appellant – seeking dispensation of the application for condonation of delay of around 22 days. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appeal was filed within limitation, but due to certain technical difficulties, the Office has raised objections and according to the Office, there is a delay of 22 days. 3. Considering the technical difficulty in calculating the delay, the application is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. 4. Registry is directed to register the Appeal. SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.8966 OF 2026. 5. The appellant, who is the original plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit came to be dismissed. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed and the learned Appellate Court has confirmed the order of the learned Trial Court. 2 23. CAS 586.26.odt The appellant has filed the present Second Appeal on the proposed substantial questions of law:- I. Whether a person in settled possession of Government land, whose possession was once regularized through a valid lease, can be dispossessed without following the due process of law, merely on the basis of a subsequent administrative order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice? II. Whether the ex-parte order dated 26/12/2005 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in a suo-moto revision, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Appellant, can be considered a valid ground to non-suit the Appellant and deny him the protection of law against forcible dispossession? 6. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable after four weeks. 7. Mr. Joshi, learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 8. The appellant is permitted to file an application for additional substantial question(s) of law. 9. Parties to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the appeal. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) T αɳɱαყ...