Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Pravin Gajanan Thakur - Appellant
Versus
Kalpana Virbhadra Raut - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.5716 OF 2024
Decided On : 21-02-2025
(A) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sections 251, 252, 255, and 259 - Maintainability of appeal against order condoning delay - The court clarifies that no appeal lies against an order condoning delay under Section 251, as it merges with the admission of appeal, which is barred under Section 252 - The only remedy available is a revision before the State Government under Section 259. (Paras 46-49)
(B) Jurisprudence - Conflicting interpretations of maintainability of appeals against orders condoning delay have led to the need for clarification to avoid confusion. (Paras 1-2)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the Additional Collector's order dismissing their appeal as not maintainable against the SDO's order condoning delay in filing an appeal regarding a mutation entry made 65 years prior. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Additional Collector's dismissal of the appeal, confirming that the remedy against the SDO's order is a revision application to the State Government. (Paras 48-49)
Issues: The main issue was whether an appeal is maintainable against an order condoning delay in filing an appeal. (Paras 11-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the act of condoning delay and the admission of appeal are inseparable under Section 251, thus no appeal lies against such an order, which is covered by Section 252. (Paras 46-47)
Result: Petition dismissed.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
No. Section 252 bars appeal against order admitting appeal under Section 251. Condonation of delay and admission of appeal form a composite act under Section 251, and the ministerial act of admission is automatic upon condonation, both covered by Section 252(a). (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
The only remedy is revision before the State Government under Section 259 of MLRC. Appeal under Section 247 is barred against such order. (Para 26 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 49 )
Section 251 involves a ministerial act of registering the appeal after condonation of delay, while Section 255 involves an adjudicatory function where the appellate authority applies its mind to the appeal memo and admits or rejects it. Section 252 bars appeal only against admission under Section 251, not against admission under Section 255. (Para 24 , 27 , 28 , 44 , 47 )
These judgments are per-incuriam as they were rendered without noticing the provisions of Section 255(1) and Section 259 of MLRC. Sadanand Tukaram Suroshe lays down the correct law that no appeal lies against order condoning delay. (Para 31 , 33 , 35 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 )
The two are distinct processes, but both fall within Section 251 and are covered by Section 252(a). The process of admission after condonation of delay is a ministerial act of registration, and both acts are inseparable for the purpose of Section 252. (Para 43 , 44 , 47 )
JUDGMENT :
1. The issue of maintainability of a further appeal before the higher appellate authority against an order merely condoning the delay in filing of an appeal passed by the lower appellate authority under Section 251 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ( MLRC ) repeatedly attracts attention of this Court and there has already been sufficient jurisprudence on this issue in the form of judgments of coordinate benches of this Court. However, it is noticed that different interpretations of those judgments are often placed in support and against the contention of maintainability of such appeals, which has necessitated the present judgment so as to avoid confusion and achieve better clarity on the issue.
2. The issue arises in the light of challenge set up by the Petitioners to the order dated 2 August 2023 passed by the Additional Collector, Raigad, holding that the appeal is not maintainable against order dated 17 May 2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aligbag (SDO) allowing the application for condonation of delay.
3. Considering the nature of issue taken up for consideration, it is not necessary to narrate facts of the case in detail. Land bearing Gat No.248/1/C admeasuring 0.08 Hector 60 R at village -Thal, Taluka- Alibag, District-Raigad is the subject matter of the Petition. Mutation Entry No.6866 was certified on 13 May 1960 deleting the name of Krishna Bhaskar Mhatre and entering the name of Gajanan Thakur as holder of the land. Respondent No.1 got aggrieved by the said Mutation Entry No.6866 after period of 65 long years and filed R.T.S. Appeal No.43 of 2023 before the SDO, Alibag challenging the said Mutation Entry. Alongwith the appeal, Respondent No.1 filed application for condonation of delay. SDO took up only the application for condonation of delay and issued notices to the Respondent therein (Petitioners herein). It appears that Petitioners did not appear before the SDO. After considering the submissions canvassed on behalf of the Appellant/Respondent No.1, SDO proceeded to pass order dated 17 May 2023 allowing the application for condonation of delay holding that the Appeal was required to be decided on merits. He accordingly fixed further date of hearing in the appeal.
4. Petitioners got aggrieved by order dated 17 May 2023 passed by the SDO and filed Appeal No.294 of 2023 before the Additional Collector, Raigad. However, the Additional Collector held that the appeal was not maintainable under the provisions of Section 252 of the MLRC and appeal has accordingly been dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 2 August 2023. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2 August 2023 and have filed the present Petition.
5. Mr. Rohit Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the Additional Collector has erred in dismissing the Petitioners’ Appeal as not maintainable. He would submit that there is nothing in the MLRC which bars the remedy of appeal against the order of condonation of delay. That the Additional Collector has ignored the fact that the appeal has not been filed against an order passed by the lower appellate authority admitting the appeal. That the appeal was filed before the Additional Collector against the decision of the SDO condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. He would submit that an appeal may not lie against an order of mere admission of the appeal under Section 252 of the Code, however there is no express bar in maintaining and deciding the appeal against order condoning the delay. That there is fundamental distinction between decision of the lower Appellate Authority in mere admitting the appeal and, in the decision condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal. That it is not the Legislative intent to deny remedy of Appeal against order of condonation of SDO. He would submit that condonation of delay involves adjudication of rival contentions raised by contesting parties and that therefore the remedy of appeal must be made availab
No appeal lies against an order condoning delay under Section 251 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code; the only remedy is a revision before the State Government under Section 259.
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
The court emphasized that extraordinary delays in appeal require strict scrutiny, asserting that sufficient cause must be demonstrated to justify condonation, balancing justice with the rights accrue....
The court held that for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party must demonstrate sufficient cause, with mere negligence or vague explanations failing to meet this burden.
A formal application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act is not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown, allowing courts to exercise discretion in restoring cases.
The court ruled that strict compliance with statutory time limits is mandatory, and substantial justice cannot override clear legislative provisions regarding delay in filing appeals.
The court reaffirmed that procedural compliance under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is mandatory, and non-adherence, especially concerning the recording of compromises, nullifies the authori....
Condonation of extraordinary delay requires proper explanation; courts must balance substantial justice against accrued rights and ensure genuine reasons are provided.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
