R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Anturkar, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 waives service. Mr. Rayrikar, waives service for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. writ petition is heard finally by consent of parties.

2. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 26th July, 2017 passed by the learned Minister Revenue Department, State of Maharashtra thereby confirming the order dated 23rd December, 2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai by which the learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 thereby setting aside the order dated 19th August, 2013 passed by the learned Deputy Collector, (Appeals) Mumbai Suburban District allowing the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner in filing second RTS appeal under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1996. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:--

3. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri Hariraiji Krishnajivanji Goswami and 54 others executed a deed of conveyance dated 28th February, 2006 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land bearing CTS Nos. 225 and 226 situated at Village Poisar, Kandivali admeasuring 35308.12 sq.mtrs. The said deed of conveyance was registered with the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Borivali. On 12th March, 2007, the original owner of the said land executed a Deed of Rectification in favour of the petitioner for correcting area of land from 35308.12 sq.mtrs. to 31666 sq.mtrs. and presented the same for registration. The said Deed of Registration was registered on 20th March, 2007. The name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record through the Mutation Entry No. 693. The said mutation entry had been certified on 8th July, 2008.

4. Sometime in the month of August 2009, the respondent No. 1 filed RTS No. 40 of 2009 before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer impugning the said Mutation Entry No. 693 in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that there was delay of about one year by the respondent No. 1 in filing the said appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned advocate for the petitioner who was going to appear in the said RTS No. 40 of 2009 was not in a position to attend the hearing on 28th March, 2011 and had filed an application for adjournment. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer however rejected the said application for adjournment and closed the matter for orders.

5. On 4th July, 2011, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the said RTS Appeal No. 40 of 2009 filed by the respondent No. 1. It is the case of the petitioner that no intimation under section 250 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was given to the petitioner of passing of the said order allegedly passed on 4th July, 2011. The matter was also not listed before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer on 4th July, 2011 for passing an order. Clause (4) of the operative part of the said order dated 4th July, 2011 recorded that 'the decision be informed to all concerned parties'. The petitioner did not receive any intimation of the said order as directed in the said order dated 4th July, 2011.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that only on 4th December, 2012, the petitioner came to know about the said order dated 4th July, 2011 and therefore he immediately applied for the certified copies of the said order.

7. On 22nd May, 2013, the petitioner filed 2nd RTS Appeal before the learned Deputy Collector, Mumbai. Since there was delay in filing the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware about the said order dated 4th July, 2011 till 4th December, 2012. In the said application for condonation of delay, the petitioner averred that he had handed over the papers to an advocate for preparing a draft