Courts and authorities should adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, focusing on the genuineness of the cause rather than pedantic technicalities or an explanation for every single day of delay.

ORAL JUDGMENT

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the respondent no.1-Dy.Director of Land Records, Amravati condoning delay in filing appeal challenging the order passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Yavatmal.

3. In view of the challenge raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy to file appeal before the State Government. By relying upon the position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani Versus State of Maharashtra & Others [(2016) 2 SCC 213], it is submitted that in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, ‘the Code’), the second revision application against the order passed by the Revenue Authorities is maintainable and on the basis of this judgment it was contended that the petition needs to be dismissed on account of availability of an alternate remedy.

4. To refute the contentions about availability of an alternate remedy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revisional proceedings under Section 257 of the Code cannot be considered to be an alternate much less efficacious remedy and by relying on the judgment of this Court in Abdul Shahid Versus Abdul Rab & Others [Writ Petition No.5478 of 2016], it is pointed out that in identical fact situation, this Court had entertained similar such writ petition and urged this Court for entertaining the petition despite availability of an alternate remedy.

5. Having regard to the position of law discussed in the said judgment, which is decided in identical fact situation, the instant petition is taken up for hearing at the stage of admission on merits.

6. While assailing the order dated 25.04.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no.1 has mechanically condoned the delay without considering the crucial aspect that the application for condonation of delay filed by the respondent no.4 did not disclose any sufficient cause, neither precise extent of delay. He submitted that the respondent no.1 passed the order without mentioning elaborate reasons. He also submitted that the order impugned before the respondent no.1 was an order of remand passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records which was sought to be challenged by the respondent no.4 without any legal basis and thus the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was itself unsustainable in law.

7. As against this, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the application for condonation of delay filed by the respondent no.4 precisely under Section 251 of the Code mentioned pertinent reasons for the delay. Shri S.M. Vaishnav, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 adverted my attention to the reasons mentioned in the application and submitted that the impugned order is passed by precisely considering the genuineness of these reasons and the same therefore does not need any interference.

8. While considering the controversy, it has to be seen that the respondent no.4 has filed a specific application seeking condonation of delay. The application mentions reasons about filing of a review application with respect to the proceedings which were under challenge on account of which the final order dated 11.10.2022 was not immediatel