CHANDRABHAN SITARAM PAKMODE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the non-tribal transferee is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejecting his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before it.

(2.) The Additional Tahsildar, Warora, passed an order on 15th December, 1977 in suo motu proceedings started under section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 and after hearing the parties, made an order on 15th December, 1977 directing restoration of 3 acres of land from Survey No. 99/3 situated at Atmurdi to the tribal transferor. An award was also passed awarding Rs. 36/- as compensation to the petitioner on 20th November, 1978. According to the petitioner though the impugned order was passed on 15th December, 1977, it was communicated to him on 28-9-1979 on which date he applied for a certified copy and it was delivered to him on the same day. Without filing an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the vires of the Act and for quashing the impugned order. That petition was filed on 5-10-1979 and was allowed to be withdrawn on 17-4-1984 because it was ultimately held that the provisions of the Act were not ultra vires. The petitioner, therefore, presented and appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 16-5-1984, i.e. about 29 days after the writ petition was withdrawn. In the application made for condonation of delay under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner contended that though the order was passed by the Additional Tahsildar on 15-12-1977, it was communicated to him on 28-9-1979 and he required time form 28-9-1979 to 5-10-1979 for collecting necessary documents and then writ petition came to be filed in this Court on 5-10-1979. No reason was given why the filing of the appeal from the award of compensation was delayed.

(3.) In order to show that the appeal against the order of restoration was within time, Shri Badiye the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the wording of section 6 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, which runs as follows :