Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of Ganpati Ishwar Ghatge, challenged an order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune, which held that a revision application against an order condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code) was not maintainable before him and could only be filed before the State Government. The background facts are that the name of the petitioners' father was entered into revenue records in 1980 based on a statement by the respondents. After 38 years, in 2008, the respondents filed an appeal under Section 247 before the Superintendent of Land Records, Kolhapur, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Superintendent condoned the delay on 01.02.2022. The petitioners challenged this condonation order by filing a revision application under Section 257 before the Deputy Director, who issued the impugned communication stating lack of authority. The petitioners argued that the condonation order was not covered by Section 252 (which bars appeals against certain orders) and was not declared final under Section 259, hence revision was maintainable before the Deputy Director. The respondents relied on a coordinate bench judgment in Sadanand Tukaram Suroshe v. Ashok Gajanan Suroshe, which held that an order condoning delay and admitting an appeal can only be challenged before the State Government under Section 257. The court analyzed Sections 247, 252, 257, and 259 of the Code. It noted that Section 252 bars appeals against orders passed under certain sections, but an order condoning delay is not specifically listed. However, the court held that the order condoning delay is not an appealable order under Section 252 because it is not a decision on the merits of the appeal. Therefore, the revision against such an order lies only before the State Government under the proviso to Section 257(1) read with Section 257(4), which was introduced by amendment on 05.02.2016 and clarifies that where an appeal is barred, the power to modify or reverse lies only with the State Government. The court distinguished the petitioners' reliance on Section 259, stating that it applies only to orders specifically declared final or conclusive under other provisions, and the condonation order is not such an order. Nevertheless, the revision still lies only before the State Government because the order is not appealable. The court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petition, holding that the Deputy Director correctly declined to entertain the revision.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Condonation of Delay - Appealability - An order condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is not an appealable order under Section 252 of the Code, as it is not a decision on the merits of the appeal. Therefore, such an order cannot be challenged by way of revision before the Deputy Director of Land Records under Section 257, but only before the State Government under the proviso to Section 257(1) read with Section 257(4). (Paras 6-10) B) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Revision - Maintainability - Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, provides for revision by the State Government or by officers mentioned therein. However, where an appeal is barred under Section 252, the power to modify or reverse the order lies only with the State Government under Section 257(4). Since an order condoning delay is not appealable under Section 252, the revision against it lies only before the State Government. (Paras 7-10) C) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Section 259 - Finality of Orders - Section 259 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, provides that where an order is declared final or conclusive, no appeal lies, but the State Government alone may modify or reverse it under Section 257. However, Section 259 applies only to orders specifically declared final or conclusive under other provisions (e.g., Sections 123, 124, 137, 142, 165(2)). An order condoning delay is not so declared, and hence Section 259 does not apply. Nevertheless, the revision against such order still lies only before the State Government because the order is not appealable under Section 252. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a revision application against an order condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is maintainable before the Deputy Director of Land Records under Section 257, or only before the State Government.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned communication dated 06.04.2022. It held that the order condoning delay is not an appealable order under Section 252, and therefore the revision against it lies only before the State Government under Section 257(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Deputy Director correctly declined to entertain the revision.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Sections 247
- 252
- 257
- 259 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Condonation of delay order is not appealable under Section 252
- Revision against such order lies only before State Government under Section 257
- Section 259 applies only when order is declared final or conclusive
- Amendment to Section 257(4) clarifies power of State Government
