IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that excessive delay in filing appeals, without sufficient justification, cannot be condoned, particularly in tenancy matters where the rights of tenants are protected under the law.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for parties, Petitions are taken up for hearing.

2. These Petitions challenge common Judgment and Order dtd. 28/09/2017 passed by the President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, rejecting Revision Applications filed by the Petitioner. In her Revision Applications, Petitioner had challenged various orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Panvel ('SDO') in various Tenancy Appeals instituted by her, whereby the SDO has refused to condone the delay and has accordingly dismissed the Tenancy Appeals. The issue in the present Petitions is thus about condonation of delay in filing Tenancy Appeals before the SDO.

3. All the Petitions involve similar facts. For the purpose of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No.12495/2018 are narrated. Petitioner claims that her grandfather Shri Bhagwan Hari Shringarpure purchased land bearing Survey No.3 situated at Village Ambe Tarfe Waje, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad and became its owner. That said Bhagwan Hari Shringarpure expired in the year 1966, after which the land was inherited by Petitioner's father Shri Vasant Bhagwan Shringarpure, who had one son by name Shekhar Vasant Shringarpure and one daughter by name Ujwala Rajiv Dalvi (Petitioner). Petitioner's father Shri Vasant Bhagwan Shringarpure expired in the year 1973. Shekhar Vasant Shringarpure (Petitioner's brother) was a bachelor and expired in the year 1993.

4. It is contended by Petitioner that the land was never cultivated and was classified as Varkas Padit (uncultivable). That, illegal occupants of the land falsely claimed tenancy rights in the land and filed proceedings before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal ('ALT') for fixation of purchase price under Sec. 32G of The Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ('Tenancy Act'). The ALT passed Order dated 05 /06/1968 deciding the proceedings in favour of the tenants and fixed purchase price under Sec. 32G of the Tenancy Act. Petitioner's father Vasant Bhagwan Shringarpure filed Tenancy Appeal No. 29/1969 challenging the decision of ALT dtd. 05/06/1968. By Order passed on 30/05/1969, the SDO, Panvel, set aside the order passed by the ALT and remanded the proceedings for a fresh hearing. It is Petitioner's case that after remand to the ALT, the Additional Tehsildar, Panvel, noticed an encumbrance in the form of mortgage of a bank on the land and therefore sent letter dtd. 16/12/1972 to the Civil Judge, Panvel, stating that there was a dispute regarding encumbrance of Land Mortgage Bank on the said land and the dispute is required to be referred to the Civil Judge under the provisions of Sec. 32Q(3) of the Tenancy Act. The Civil Judge was therefore requested to call the parties and decide the issue of claim of bank and give an intimation to ALT for taking further decision with regard to fixation of purchase price.

5. It is Petitioner's case that suppressing the proceedings earlier filed and remanded to ALT as well as Reference made to the Civil Judge under Sec. 32Q(3), the tenants filed fresh proceedings before the ALTcum-Addl. Tehsildar in the year 1980 for fixation of purchase price under Sec. 32G of the Tenancy Act. The ALT-cum-Addl. Tehsildar passed Order dtd. 20/05/1980 fixing purchase price of the land by holding that there was no encumbrance on the land in question. The Petitioner claimed that she was prevented from challenging the Order dtd. 20/05/1980 on account of valid reasons and filed Tenancy Appeals before the SDO, Panvel, in the year 2011 challenging various decisions of the ALT-cumAddl. Tehsildar. The Tenancy Appeals came to be rejected by the SDO on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the same holding that such inordinate delay could not be condoned.

6. Aggrieved by the decisions of the SDO, the Petitioner filed Revision Applications before the MRT. By common Judgment and Order dtd. 28/09/2017, the MRT has proceeded to reject the Revision Applications of the Petitio