JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---The petition arises from the orders passed by the authorities below refusing to condone the delay of about 20 years in filing an appeal under section 90 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') against the declaration issued under section 38-E of the said Act in favour of the respondents in relation to the properties bearing Sy. No. 45/AA and 75 situated in the village of Idoli, Taluka Hingoli.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the declaration of ownership of the suit property in favour of the respondent was made on 12-1-1959 without issuing any notice to the petitioner or his father or mother and without hearing them and, therefore, the said declaration being in violation of principles of natural justice, the same is bad in law and void ab initio. The father of the petitioner expired in the year 1961 and at that time the petitioner was minor in age. The petitioner challenged the said declaration of ownership in favour of the respondents in respect of the suit property by way of appeal under section 90 before the Deputy Collector. The same was filed on 21st July, 1979. It is the case of the petitioner that he had no knowledge of the said declaration till then. It was sought to be contended before the Deputy Collector that the respondents were not tenants in respect of the suit property and that they had refused to purchase the land and accordingly files were closed in 1961 after due verification. It was also contended that after the death of father of the petitioner, the proceedings for possession of the suit property came to be initiated by the respondents in the year 1962 but the same were not about the declaration of the ownership. The appeal having been filed after 20 years without sufficient cause for delay being shown, the same was rejected by the Deputy Collector. The revision application preferred against the same was also dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Aurangabad. Hence, the present petition.

3. Shri R.R. Jethlia, the Advocate appearing for the petitioner, relying upon notes of High Court Rulings reported in Tenancy Law Reporter Vol. XV (1967) in relation to Special Civil Application No. 1209 of 1963 in a case between (Saheba s/o Govind v. Pandurang)1, and Special Civil Application No. 2068 of 1963 decided on 10-12-1964 in a case between (Rangrao Ramrao v. Sopanrao)2, as well as 1965 Mh.L.J. Note No. 96, in relation to Special Civil Application No. 1530 of 1963 decided on 14-10-1964 in a case of (Bhagwan v. Waranga)3, submitted that the proceedings in relation to declaration of ownership of rights in favour of the respondent in the suit properties having been conducted without issuing any notice to the petitioner or his father or mother, who are admittedly the landlords of the said suit properties, the entire proceedings as well as the order passed therein are bad in law and the same having been challenged moment it came to the knowledge of the petitioner, the authorities below have acted illegally in dismissing the appeal without deciding the case of the petitioner on merits and rejecting the same merely on the ground of delay. It was further submitted by the learned Advocate that the delay was sufficiently explained as there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had knowledge about the order of declaration prior to July 1979. The finding that the petitioner had knowledge about the said order at least on 19-6-1962 based on the record in other proceedings is not borne from the record inasmuch as those proceedings were for restoration of possession of land and had nothing to do with the issue of declaration of ownership under section 38-E of the said Act.

4. Shri A.H. Vaishnav, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner and his mother were fully aware of the declaration of ownership at least from 1962 i.e. f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document