Bombay High Court
Chand Bhika Pyarewale vs Jumma Chhanwa Pyarewale And Others on 11 February, 2021
Author: V.K. Jadhav
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 WP 6881.2015.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
920 WRIT PETITION NO.6881 OF 2015
CHAND BHIKA PYAREWALE
VERSUS
JUMMA CHHANWA PYAREWALE AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Chincholkar G.N
AGP for Respondent-State : Mr. K B Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondents 1-12 : Mr. Gangakhekar S.S.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: February 11, 2021
...
PER COURT :-
1. Heard fnally with consent at adiission stage.
2. There is a delay of 722 days in fling the revision
before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad
as against the order passed by the Deputy Collector,
Tenancy, Hingoli.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed
out that the other side has threatened the petitioner
and, therefore, he had to leave his native and the
petitioner thus shifted to one another village. Learned
counsel subiits that, in addition to that, the daughter
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/02/2021 00:51:39 :::
2 WP 6881.2015.odt
of the petitioner reiained hospitalized on account of
soie health issues. Furtheriore, the petitioner was
also arrested in connection with the criie of iurder
and he caie to be released subsequently on bail.
4. The learned Adiinistrative Meiber of the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in the
iipugned order dated 8.4.2015 has observed that as per
the prescription the daughter of the petitioner was
adiitted on 24.4.2014 and discharged on 10.5.2014.
She was hospitalized for a period of 15 days only.
Furtheriore, the petitioner has placed before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal the xerox copy of the
arrest docuient indicating his arrest on 24.5.2011 in
connection with the criie punishable under section
302 of IPC. Period in custody was about 5 days. The
learned Meiber of the Tribunal has observed that the
court has released the petitioner on bail. Thus, the total
period including the iedical purpose and police custody
does not exceed 20 days. The learned Meiber has thus
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/02/2021 00:51:39 :::
3 WP 6881.2015.odt
observed that the petitioner could not explain total delay
of 722 days.
5. Mr. Gangakhedkar the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents has pointed out that the theory of
giving threats and leaving native place is iiaginary one.
Learned counsel subiits that in the appeal preferred
against the cancellation of iutation before the S.D.O.
by the petitioner against the respondents, the petitioner
has coiproiised the iatter with the respondents and,
accordingly, said appeal caie to be disposed off in
teris of the said settleient. Learned counsel subiits
that, in the said appeal also the petitioner has shown
his address of the native place and not the place where
he allegedly shifted due to so called threats.
6. It is also pertinent that the petitioner has
suppressed the said aspect of the coiproiise,
irrespective of its effect, before the learned Meiber of
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, so also before this
Court. The petitioner has not approached to this Court
with clean hands, nor even to the Tribunal.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/02/2021 00:51:39 :::
4 WP 6881.2015.odt
Furtheriore, I fnd no error in the observations iade
by the learned Adiinistrative Meiber, Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in observing that the
total period is only of 20 days and, as such, the
petitioner has iiserably failed to explain an inordinate
delay of 722 days in preferring the revision before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. No case is
iade out. There is no substance in this writ petition.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Writ Petition is hereby disiissed.
( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/02/2021 00:51:39 :::