Soma Pundlik Gangwane (Bawlekar) And ORS. v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

ssk 1/2 WP 5882/2016 aw CA 1637/16-13/7/16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5882 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1637 OF 2016 Soma Pundalik Gangavane-Bawlekar & ors.

...Petitioners

vs.

State of Maharashtra & ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Aniket P. Ranade, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, Additional Government Pleader for respondent no.1.

Mr. Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate for respondent no.2 and 3. Coram : Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J.

Date : 13th July, 2016 P.C. :

1.

This petition challenges the order dated 2nd February, 2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division on RTS Revision No.520 of 2013 preferred by respondents no. 2 and 3. Respondent no.4 herein is respondent no.4 to that appeal. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order exceeds the scope of the revision application before the Additional Commissioner.

2.

Mr. Prabhu, the learned advocate for respondents no.2 and 3 does not dispute that the revision application arose out of the order passed by the Additional Collector refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. In that circumstance the scope of the revision application was limited to considering whether refusal to condone the delay was justified.

ssk 2/2 WP 5882/2016 aw CA 1637/16-13/7/16 The Additional Commissioner insetad of restricting himself to the scope of the revision has decided the dispute between the parties on it's merits without even touching upon the aspect of delay. In the circumstances, Mr. Prabhu states that he has no objection if the revision is remanded to the Additional Commissioner to consider the issue arising therein i.e. condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Additional Collector. He also states that though there were in all three prayers to the appeal preferred by respondents no.2 and 3, they will restrict themselves only to prayer (a) and the first prayer (b). They do not press for the second prayer (b) in the RTS revision.

3.

Respondents no.2 and 3 had preferred the RTS revision because the Collector had refused to condone the delay in filing Appeal No. 94 of 2011. The prayers (a) and (b) relate to the grievance of these respondents in rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay. Perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no consideration of this grievance at all. The petition is therefore partly allowed. The order dated 2nd February, 2016 is set aside. The RTS Revision No. 520 of 2013 is remanded to the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai for fresh hearing. The hearing would be restricted to prayers (a) and first prayer (b) of the appeal. 4.

In view of disposal of the petition, Civil Application No. 1637 of 2016 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off.

[Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J.]