Prafulla Damodar Srujan v. Lalitkumar Dattatray Donde And ANR

Megha 43_wp_617_2024.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 617 OF 2024 Praful Damodar Srujan and Anr.

...Petitioners

V/s.

Laltikumar Dattatraya Donde and Anr.

...Respondents

______________ Mr. Drupad S. Patil for the Petitioners.

Mr. Rohit D. Joshi for Respondent No.1.

Mrs. Vaishali S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent -State. ______________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated: 26 March 2025.

P.C.:

1) Petition challenges order dated 16 October 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) partly allowing the revision application preferred by Respondent No.1 and consequently setting aside Sub Divisional Officer's (SDO) order dated 23 February 2009 as well as order of the Additional Collector dated 9 May 2014.

MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB by MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date: 2025.03.28 19:08:27 +0530 2) I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for 1 of

Megha 43_wp_617_2024.docx Respondent No.1 and Ms. Nimbalkar, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent -State.

3) It appears that the Circle Officer had refused to certify Mutation Entry No.2028 by order dated 4 March 1989. Petitioner belatedly filed appeal before the SDO in the year 2008, which came to be allowed by the SDO on 23 February 2009. Respondent No.1 did not file appeal against SDO's order dated 23 February 2009 within reasonable time and filed the same belatedly in the year 2014. Respondent No.1 also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Additional Collector. By order dated 9 May 2014 the Additional Collector apparently condoned the delay without recording detailed reasons in writing. However, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, by its order dated 8 July 2016, set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 9 May 2014. Respondent No.

1 therefore filed revision application before the Hon'ble Minister. The scope of revision application before the Hon'ble Minister was only with regard to correctness of order passed by the Additional Collector on 9 May 2014 condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. Instead of restricting the remit of appeal to the correctness of order dated 9 May 2014 the Hon'ble Minister has erroneously expanded the scope of appeal by going into correctness of the SDO's order dated 26 February 2009. The Hon'ble Minister has thus committed jurisdictional error in passing order dated 16 October 2023.

Megha 43_wp_617_2024.docx recording reasons for condoning delay of over five years in filing of appeal, he ought to have remanded the appeal for hearing of the application afresh before the Additional Collector. The order passed by the Hon'ble Minister is thus indefensible and liable to be set aside.

4) I therefore proceed to pass the following order: (i) Orders dated 16 October 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, order dated 8 July 2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division as well as order dated 9 May 2014 Additional Collector are set aside.

(ii) Application seeking condonation of delay shall stand restored on the file of Additional Collector, who shall proceed to decide the same on its own merits without being influenced by the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner or the Hon'ble Minister. (iii) Both parties shall be at liberty to rely on additional documents in support of their respective contentions. (iv) Application for condonation of delay shall be decided by the Additional Collector in an expeditious manner. 5) With the above directions the Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] 3 of