Mere ignorance of an order for over 11 years is insufficient to constitute a 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay; due diligence and credible evidence are required.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dated 3rd October 2024 passed by respondent No.23 in Appeal No.2621/1877/P.K.227/J-3, whereby the said authority has confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 21st December 2020 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.SR/854/2019. The said appeal arises from proceedings under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the MLRC” for the sake of brevity).

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition, as pleaded by the petitioner, are as under:

4. According to the petitioner, the petitioner-Society is situated on Plot No.15 admeasuring approximately 53,405 sq. meters, which was acquired by the State Government on behalf of respondent No.21. It is the petitioner’s case that an area admeasuring 6,521 sq. meters was allotted to the petitioner- Society on leasehold basis by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, “MCGM”) vide lease deed executed on 29th August 1975. However, out of the said area of 6,521 sq. meters, an area admeasuring 5,167.31 sq. meters was actually handed over to the petitioner-Society by MCGM on 30th April 1982, pursuant to a possession receipt and a joint survey receipt executed on the said date. It is contended that the petitioner-Society has been in peaceful possession of the said land since 30th April 1982.

5. The petitioner further contends that the City Survey Officer- VIII, Bombay Suburban District, vide letter dated 20th October 1987, intimated the Additional District Deputy Collector, B.S.D., Andheri, regarding changes in the City Survey Nos. 25, 28, 29, and 37. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 25th November 1987, the Additional District Deputy Collector, Andheri, directed the City Survey Officer-VIII to substitute the said CTS numbers with CTS Nos.101 (part), 103, 108 (part), 109, 110, 111, 112 (part), 113 (part), 284 (part), and 285 (part). Upon final measurement of the said Plot No.15, the City Survey Officer found the area to be 6,540.75 sq. meters instead of 5,167.31 sq. meters, and accordingly directed the petitioner-Society to pay Non-Agricultural Assessment in respect of the area admeasuring 6,540.75 sq. meters with effect from 1st December 1983.

6. It is further the case of the petitioner that the building of the petitioner-Society was constructed in the year 1990. It is the petitioner’s grievance that respondent Nos.3 to 19 entered into an agreement with respondent No.20 only in the year 2005. Pursuant to a letter addressed by the petitioner-Society, respondent No.2 conducted a survey of Plot No.5 vide M.R. No.76/2004 dated 17th and 18th March 2005 and accordingly prepared a measurement map. A survey notice was displayed at the Ghatla Municipal School, Chembur, which is a prominent location in the vicinity. Thereafter, respondent No.2, upon conclusion of the said survey and taking into consideration the communication dated 25th November 1987 and the Land Acquisition Award Nos.462/1962 and 1287/1962, passed an order dated 31st May 2005.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31st May 2005, respondent Nos.2 to 19 preferred Appeal No.408 of 2018 before respondent No.1, after a delay of 11 years and 4 months. Respondent No.1, by order dated 28th February 2018, allowed the said appeal. The petitioner-Society, being dissatisfied thereby, challenged the said order before the District Land Records Officer by filing Appeal S.R. No.780 of 2018. The said appeal came to be allowed and the matter was remanded back to respondent No.1 for deciding the application for condonation of delay. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 allowed the application for condonation of delay by order dated 31st December 2020.

8. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before respondent No.1 seeking reopening of the hearing of the appeal and recall of the order,