JUDGMENT

1] By the order dated 23.02.2023, the following position was recorded :

“Heard Mr. Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Masood Shareef, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. None appears for the respondent Nos. 3 to 11 though served. Learned AGP for respondent nos.12 and 13

2. The petition challenges the order dated 30/07/2019, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur (page 66) whereby the delay of 35 years, in challenging the mutation entry in the name of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been rejected on account of absence of any reasons. Mr. Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that in fact there is no delay whatsoever, as the obligation, for making a correct mutation entry was that of the authority based upon the language of Section 150 read with Section 154 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and as the authorities had committed the mistake, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. He submits, that this obligation has been recognized by this Court in Shamrao Ganpat Chintamani Vs. Kakasaheb Laxman Gorde 2008 (Suppl) BCR 848 (paragraph 12).

3. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order, cannot be sustained and is required t