The Competent Authority has the discretion to condone delay in filing challenges based on the circumstances of the case, including the lack of notice to the respondents and the necessity for a detailed inquiry to determine the rights of the parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. By the present Petition, Petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of Order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the District Superintendent Land Record, Sangli.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as under:-

2.1. Respondent No. 1 along with some of other Respondents originally filed Appeal No. 101/2011 under the provisions of Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the District Superintendent Land Record, Sangli to challenge the order passed by Sub-District Inspector of Land Record and Inquiry Officer, Vita in respect of City Survey No. 216 on the ground that the said Applicants were entitled to a right of way on the said CTS Number.

2.2. It is the Petitioners’ case that in the year 1986 after examining the record of the Grampanchayat and position of actual possession of the occupants on City Survey No. 216, report was submitted by Inquiry Officer.

2.3. It is the further contention of Petitioners that though the boundaries of City Survey No. 216 were decided as far back as on 20.08.1986, Respondent No. 1 and some other Respondents challenged the same by filing Appeal in the year 2011 i.e. after a delay of more than 25 years. However, Respondents did not file any Application for seeking condonation of delay.

2.4. After considering the record of the case, the District Superintend Land Record, Sangli passed an Order dated 23.09.2013 and condoned the delay of 25 years.

3. This order is challenged in the present Petition on the ground that the District Superintend of Land Record did not have the jurisdiction to consider such an Application beyond the period of three years which is the limitation period prescribed in such cases. Petitioners have further averred that while passing the impugned order, the entire evidence has not been appreciated by the Competent Authority in its right perspective.

4. Heard Mr. Nandinath, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioners, Mr. Kathane, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Pujari, learned APP appearing for state.

5. I have perused the Order dated 23.09.2013. The said order has been passed after hearing the respective parties and is a well reasoned order. The Competent Authority has after hearing the parties and investigation of the record opined that both parties have submitted written submissions in respect of the issue of condonation of delay which has been taken on record and considered by the Competent Authority. Respondents’ case before the Competent Authority was that by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing No. 2504 dated 22.06.1967, they had right, title and interest in City Survey No. 216. The Competent Authority has specifically concluded that the decision of the Inquiry Officer when read clearly reveals that when the inquiry was done, at that time Respondents (i.e. Appellants before the Competent Authority) were not given any notice of such inquiry which is evident from inspection of the Inquiry Register which has been inspected by the Competent Authority. A categorical finding is recorded in the impugned order that the fact of having given notice to Respondents (Appellants) in the inquiry proceedings is not notified or entered into and does not appear in the inquiry register. It is further seen that the registered sale deed in favour of Respondents is of the year 1967 i.e. 19 years before the date of inquiry. Therefore it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to have given notice to the Respondents and all concerned persons who had interest in the subject land. This is the prima facie finding recorded by the Competent Authority in the impugned order and therefore, the Competent Authority has come to the definite conclusion that in view of this finding, delay of 25 years deserves to be condoned. It is stated that merely on the ground of delay, substantive right of the Respondents emanating from the registered sale deed cannot be overlooked. Admittedly in 1986 when survey took place, it has come on record that Respondents were never iss