Shri. Dnyaneshwar Shamrao Moholkar v. Shri. Govind Shahaji Gaikwad And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.22780 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4508 OF 2013 Shri. Dnyamneshwar Shamrao Moholkar ..Applicant

Versus

Shri. Govind Shahaji Gaikwad and others ..Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/by Mr. Sanjay Kulkarni for the Applicant. Mr. A. B. Kadam for the Respondent Nos.2A & 2B. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.

DATE : 20th MARCH, 2017 P.C.

The above Civil Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 2 years 4 months and 24 days in filing the above Review Petition. The reasons for the delay are mentioned in grounds (A), (B) and (C) of the Civil Application. In ground (A), it is stated that the Applicant was not aware of the decision of this Court dated 17.02.2014 of which decision review is sought. In ground (B), it is stated that it is only recently i.e. prior to the filing of the application that the Applicant became aware of the dismissal of the Writ Petition and in ground (C), it is averred that the Applicant was under a belief that unless certified copy is obtained the Review Petition could not be filed. The above Civil Application for condonation of delay has

been replied to on behalf of the contesting Respondents 2A and 2B. The grounds mentioned in the Civil Application have been questioned. The Respondents have sought to question the case of the Applicant that he became aware of the order recently by relying upon the notice dated 18.09.2015 issued by them to the Applicant which is received by the Applicant on 26.09.2015 as also seek to rely upon the notice issued by the Tahsildar and ALT, Mohol dated 02.01.2016 informing the Applicant that the proceedings relating to 32M are kept for hearing on 08.02.2016. Hence, it is the case of the Respondent Nos.2A and 2B that even assuming that the Applicant was not aware of the order passed by this Court dated 17.02.2014 at least on 26.09.2015 and thereafter on 02.01.2016 the knowledge of the order has to be attributed to the Applicant.

At this stage, it would be relevant to note that the above Writ Petition was filed by the Applicant challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (For short "MRT"). By which order, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 27.07.2007 in Appeal was confirmed by the MRT. The proceedings had reached the MRT in view of the fact that the application filed by the Applicant under Section 31 of the Bombay Agricultural and Lands Tribunal for restoration of the possession of the tenanted land rejected by the Tahsildar and ALT which

rejection was confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer in Appeal and thereafter by the impugned order in the above Writ Petition. This Court in view of the concurrent orders passed by the Authorities below and the MRT did not deem it fit to exercise its writ jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition. The last round resulting in the dismissal of the Writ Petition was preceded by two earlier rounds, the matter had remanded back to the Tahsildar and ALT. Hence the Applicant was prosecuting the proceedings relating to the restoration of possession since long. It is therefore impossible to believe that the Applicant had not kept himself abreast of the developments in the Writ Petition especially having regard to the fact that there were three concurrent orders passed against him.

In any event the Applicant can be said to have acquired knowledge of the order passed by this Court on 26.09.2015 when notice came to be issued by the Respondent Nos.2A and 2B to him that they would be moving before the authorities fixing the purchase price and thereafter notice issued by the Tahsildar dated 02.01.2016. The instant application has been filed long thereafter on 12.08.2016. Hence the reasons which are put forth by the Respondent Nos.2A and 2B do not commend acceptance to this Court for exercising discretion in favour of the Applicant. Hence no relief can be granted to the Applicant in the above Civil Application. The Civil Application is accordingly rejected.

In view of the rejection of the Civil Application, the above Review Petition which suffers from the huge delay of 2 years 4 months and 24 days does not survive and to accordingly stand disposed of as such.

[R.M.SAVANT, J]