Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of deceased original tenants, challenged the judgment and order dated 12/11/2021 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), Camp Kolhapur, which allowed the Revision Application filed by Respondent No.1 and set aside the order dated 23/11/2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) condoning the delay in filing Tenancy Appeal No.71/2020. The MRT rejected the application for condonation of delay. The dispute arose from mutation entries made in 1991-92 in the revenue records in the name of the respondents. The petitioners claimed they were not aware of these entries until 2019 and filed a Tenancy Appeal in 2020, which was delayed by about 30 years. The SDO condoned the delay, but the MRT, in revision, set aside that order, holding that the petitioners had not shown sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court, in the present writ petition, examined whether the MRT erred in rejecting the condonation application. The Court noted that the petitioners were aware of the mutation entries as they were parties to earlier proceedings, including a suit filed in 1992 and a proceeding under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Court held that the MRT correctly found that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and that the SDO had erred in condoning it. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the MRT's order.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The petitioners sought condonation of about 30 years delay in filing Tenancy Appeal against mutation entries made in 1991-92. The SDO condoned the delay, but the MRT reversed that order. The High Court held that the MRT correctly found no sufficient cause for such inordinate delay, as the petitioners were aware of the mutation entries and failed to act promptly. The Court upheld the MRT's order rejecting the condonation application. (Paras 1-10) B) Tenancy Law - Mutation Entries - Appeal against - Delay - The dispute pertained to mutation entries made in 1991-92 in the name of respondents. The petitioners claimed they were not aware of the entries until 2019. The Court noted that the petitioners were parties to earlier proceedings and had knowledge of the entries. The delay of 30 years was held to be unexplained and not condonable. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners in Tenancy Appeal No.71/2020, where the delay was about 30 years.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the MRT order dated 12/11/2021 rejecting the condonation of delay application.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Tenancy Act
- Delay of 30 years
- No sufficient cause
- MRT jurisdiction
- SDO order
