The Bombay High Court in Ashokrao Ganpati Ghatge & Ors. vs. Madhavrao Ramchandra Ghatge & Ors. deliberated on the legal permissibility of challenging an order condoning delay in land appeals under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC), 1966. The petitioners contested the Deputy Director of Land Records' decision that revision against such an order could only be filed with the State Government under Section 257. The court differentiated between the condonation of delay and the admission of appeals, ruling that they are distinct proceedings. It ruled that condonation orders do not merge with appeal admissions, allowing revisions before the superior officer.

1. Nature of the Petition (Para 1):
The petitioners challenged the order dated 06.04.2022 by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune, which directed that revision could only be filed before the State under Section 257 of the MLRC, 1966.

2. Historical Background (Para 2):
The land in question was surveyed and the petitioners' father, Ganpati Ishwar Ghatge, was recorded as the owner in 1980. However, after 38 years, respondents filed an appeal challenging this entry, and a delay condonation application was filed and granted.

3. Petitioners' Legal Argument (Para 3):
The petitioners argued that the Deputy Director of Land Records has the authority to entertain revisions under Section 257, challenging only the condonation of delay, as it is distinct from the appeal admission. They cited various precedents to support their claim.

4. Respondents' Counter Argument (Para 4):
The respondents relied on the precedent in Sadanand Tukaram Suroshe, arguing that any challenge to condonation of delay and appeal admission should be addressed together before the State Government, not a lower authority.

5. Legal Precedent and Interpretation (Paras 5-6):
The court examined the legal principles in Kunhayammed & Others vs. State of Kerala concerning the doctrine of merger and decided that condonation of delay and admission of appeals are separate stages. The doctrine of merger was ruled inapplicable to delay condonation orders.

6. Distinct Proceedings of Condonation and Appeal (Paras 11-12):
The court further ruled that condonation of delay is a separate proceeding, and its order cannot merge with the appeal admission. The appellate authority only gains jurisdiction after condoning the delay, and a revision against this order is maintainable.

7. Application of Section 252 and 259 MLRC (Paras 13-14):
The court held that the provisions of Section 252, which bar appeals against certain orders, do not apply to condonation orders. Therefore, the revision against condonation of delay before the Deputy Director of Land Records is valid.

8. Conclusion (Paras 17):
The court set aside the impugned communication and remanded the case back to the Deputy Director of Land Records for fresh consideration, reaffirming the petitioners' right to challenge the condonation of delay.

Legal Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Pertains to the revision of orders passed by revenue officers.
• Section 252 of MLRC: Bars appeals against certain interim orders.
• Section 259 of MLRC: Specifies that only the State Government can modify or annul decisions deemed final under the Code.

Ratio Decidendi:

The key legal principle established is that an order condoning delay does not merge into the admission of appeal. They are distinct proceedings, and thus, revisions against delay condonation can be maintained independently before superior authorities without requiring the intervention of the State Government.

Subjects:

Land Records Dispute, Condonation of Delay, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

Land Law, MLRC 1966, Delay Condonation, Doctrine of Merger, Revision Application, Land Appeals.