WARLU Vs. GANGOTRIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Warlu, made an application before Addl. Tahsildar, Hinganghat. District Wardha in State of Maharashtra for a declaration that he was a tenant of Survey Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of village Anatargaon. That application was registered as Revenue Case No. 12. Appellant, Warlu, claimed to be a tenant by virtue of a lease granted in his favour by Subhadra and Ahilya, daughters of Mahadeorao through his second wife Parvatibai. On the other hand, Gangotribai, the first wife of Mahadeorao filed an application registered as Revenue Case No. I before the AddI. Tahsildar for a declaration that Warlu and Kesho were not tenants, the right which they claimed in Revenue Case No. 12. In addition to these two revenue cases, there were two other cases registered as Revenue Cases Nos. 2 and 4 which arose out of references made by the Civil Court for deciding the claim of Laxman, Tulshiram and Bani who claimed to be tenants of the same lands through Gangotribai. These applications were heard and decided by a common order made by the Addl. Tahsildar who accepted Warlu's claim of being the tenant of these lands. Against the common order, made by the AddI. Tahsildar, appeals were filed to the Special Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Wardha. In appeal, it was held that the owner was Gangotribai and not Subhadra and Ahilya and, therefore, the claim made by Warlu as tenant of these lands was rejected; and the two references made by the Civil Court were remanded to the Addl. Tahsildar for enquiry and fresh decision in accordance with law. Thereafter, three revisions arising out of these revenue cases were filed before the Revenue Tribunal by Warlu. These revisions were dismissed.

(2.) The said Warlu has filed Civil Appeal No. 244/1982 by special leave against the High Court's order only in so far as it relates to dismissal of writ petition No. 677/1974. Against the common order of the High Court dismissing writ petitions Nos. 679/74 and 760/74, Warlu has filed special leave petitions which are barred by 4125 days i.e. by more than 11 years.

(3.) The first question is whether there is any ground to condone the delay in filing the special leave petitions by which the High Court's common order dated 20-8-l980 rejecting writ petitions Nos. 679/74 and 760/74 has been challenged.