1 WP 491-13&Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.491 OF 2013

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.510 OF 2013

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.76 OF 2014

1. M/s Sycamore Growmore Pvt. Ltd.

a Company duly registered under the

Indian Companies Act, 1956

2. M/s Organ Realty Pvt. Ltd.

a Company duly registered under the

Indian Companies Act, 1956

3. M/s Conifer Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

a Company duly registered under the

Indian Companies Act, 1956

4. M/s Walflower Agri Tech Pvt. Ltd.

a Company duly registered under the

Indian Companies Act, 1956

5. M/s Pyramid Sec. & Cons. Pvt. Ltd.

a Company duly registered under the

Indian Companies Act, 1956

all represented herein by their duly constituted

power of attorney

Shri Jayant E. Jadhav,

major of age, resident of “Rajash”,

66/3, Thambatkarmala, near

Mamata Gas Company,

Admednagar, Maharashtra

VERSUS

... Petitioners.

2 WP 491-13&Ors.

Mr. Lourenco Fernandes,

Azosssim, Ilhas Goa

(since deceased)

through his legal heirs

(1) Mr. Santano Fernandes

(2) Mrs. Joaquinha Fernandes

(3) Mr. Hermino Fernandes

(4) Mrs. Carmina Fernandes

(5) Mr. Alexander Fernandes

All r/o house no.87,

Corpir, Azzossim,

Ilhas, Goa,

All are major.

... Respondents.

Mr. V. A. Lawande and Mr. P. Redkar, Advocates for the Petitioners.

Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Kenny, Advocate for the

Respondents.

Coram: M. S. SONAK, J

Date: 25^th February 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. V. A. Lawande, learned counsel for the

Petitioners in all these petitions. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar learned Senior

Advocate appears along with Ms. S. Kenny for the contesting

Respondents in all these petitions.

2.

The learned counsel for the parties agree that these three

petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order.

3 WP 491-13&Ors.

3.

In Writ Petition No.510 of 2013, the challenge is to the

order dated 25

th July 2012 by which the Administrative Tribunal

(Tribunal) has condoned the delay of 4 years and 194 days in filing an

appeal to question the conversion sanad dated 2

nd June 2006 issued in

favour of the Petitioners.

4.

In Writ Petition No.491 of 2013, the challenge is to the

order dated 19

th March 2012 by which the Tribunal has granted leave to

the contesting Respondents to institute appeal to question the

conversion sanad dated 2

nd June 2006.

5.

In Writ Petition No.76 of 2014, the challenge is to the order

dated 4

th July 2013 by which the Tribunal after granting leave and

condoning the delay in instituting an appeal against the conversion

sanad dated 2

nd June 2006 has stayed the operation of such sanad dated

2

nd June 2006. Given the aforesaid circumstances, it is only appropriate

that all these petitions are taken up and disposed of by a common

judgment and order.

6.

The first question which arises for determination is whether

the contesting Respondents had shown sufficient cause for seeking

condonation of delay of 4 years and 194 days in instituting an appeal

against the conversion sanad dated 2

nd June 2006.

4 WP 491-13&Ors.

7.

In the application seeking condonation of delay, the

contesting Respondents had pleaded that they were old, sick, and

illiterate. They pleaded that the conversion sanad dated 2^nd June 2006

was procured by practicing fraud on the Revenue Authorities. Above all,

they pleaded that they were not aware of the conversion sanad dated 2^nd

June 2006 and they acquired knowledge about such sanad only in the

first week of February 2011, and the application for condonation of

delay was filed on 14

th February 2011.

8.

The averments concerning awareness or knowledge of the

c