1. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10.08.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Inam Appeal No. 2/1997.

By the impugned judgment and order, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. There is no adjudication by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, on merits of the appeal.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the genesis of the litigation commenced with the application filed by respondent nos. 2 to 9 herein before the District Collector (Land Reforms), Beed. It is the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners raised several objections in their written reply about locus of the applicants to file the application before the District Collector (Land Reforms), Beed, and also the point of limitation. So also, objection is raised on the point that inherent nature of lands being a service inam lands, it is not abolished and therefore, Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 is not applicable. Consequently, occupancy cannot be granted since exemption from tenancy is provided under the statute. The nature of inam is determined under Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, succession proceedings of their predecessor and it is final since not challenged by the respondents herein i.e. applicants in said proceedings. However, inspite of raising the aforesaid points before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Beed, none of the points have been considered by the said authority.

3. It is further submitted that, by the respondent nos. 2 to 9 herein, before the District Collector (Land Reforms), Beed, a claim was set out in respect of agricultural lands S.Nos. 180, 181 and 183 situated at Ambajogai, Dist. Beed and determination of nature of Inam of the said land under section 2 (A) of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 being community service in Inam and further claiming declaration of occupancy of the land under section 6 of the said Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the three lands referred above are Mashrut Khidmat Inam lands. Under Muntakhab No. 1131 of 1300 Fasli, succession of said lands is granted to the successors of original inamdars Majarudisha Humaunisha resident of Hyderabad. The lands were granted to original Inamdar to render services of Mohatsabi and Masfi. The petitioners are the successors of original inamdars. The inherent nature of the inams referred above being a service to the institution needs to be classified as service inams and consequentially are not covered by the application of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. The succession of the service inam lands is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act, since the statement of objects of the said Act provides for settlement of claim of succession to the service inam lands.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the Divisional Commissioner committed error in dismissing the appeal on the point of limitation. It is submitted that appellate court has not touched issues related to determination of the nature of land and applicability of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. Thus, there is failure to exercise jurisdiction under the impugned judgment. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puransingand others vs. State of Punjab and otheres reported in (1996) 2 SCC 205 held that when lis is continued the point of limitation requires liberal construction. Assuming that there was point of limitation having regard to the chequred history of litigation of running from office of Divisional Commissioner to State Govt. and back to Divisional Commissioner, point of limitation should not have been decided against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the letter and spirit