← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/644/2024disposed off

Dilip Manohar Kene And ORS v. Ambo Janu Gaikar Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs And ORS

2024-07-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote2 pages

52-WP-644-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 644 OF 2024 Dilip Manohar Kene And Ors

...Petitioners

Versus

Ambo Janu Gaikar Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs And Ors

...Respondents

....

Mr. Abhishek Samant, (Through VC), for the Petitioners. Smt. V.R. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent - State. ....

CORAM

:

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE :

1st JULY, 2024 P.C.

:

1.

Heard Mr. Samant, learned counsel for the petitioner. The order passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal ("ALT") dated 18.03.1980 was sought to be challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal in the year 2013 after a delay of 33 years, which ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL has been rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer ("SDO") by his ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2024.07.01 19:48:23 +0530 order dated 16.8.2018 (page 91) which in turn has been confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("MRT") by the Judgment dated 16.03.2021 (page 31).

Arun Sankpal

52-WP-644-2024.doc 2.

The only reason given seeking condonation of delay for 33 years is that the petitioner was not aware of the passing of the Order dated 18.03.1980. Any delay which is sought to be condoned has to be on sufficient cause to be shown. 3.

In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that, consequent to the order dated 18.03.1980, the Mutation Entries were corrected and the person in whose name the entries stood was cultivating the land, which has been so done by him since the last more than 33 years. That being the position, the petitioner cannot claim ignorance of the Order dated 18.03.1980.

4.

The petition according to me does not satisfy the requirement of showing sufficient cause as per the law in that regard, considering which, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned SDO as well as the MRT.

4.

The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) Arun Sankpal