Bombay High Court
Maheboobsab Fakirsab Shaikh Died Lrs ... vs Baswanthappa Malappa Sangve Died Lrs ... on 26 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9043
9-WP-12765-2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
9 WRIT PETITION NO. 12765 OF 2017
Maheboobsab Fakirsab Shaikh Died Lrs Abdul Rashid Maheboobsab
Shaikh
VERSUS
Baswanthappa Malappa Sangve Died Lrs Somnath Baswanthappa
Sangve And Others
.....
Ms. S. S. Kazi, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. G. Nandedkar, Advocate for Respondents
.....
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 26.02.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2017 passed
by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Case
No.ROR/Revision/325/2015, the order dated 11.08.2015 passed by
the Additional Collector, Latur in File No.2014/ROR/A-07 and the
order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ausa -
Renapur, whereby the Application filed by the Petitioner challenging
the mutation entry came to be rejected on the ground of delay.
3. The learned Counsel Mr. Kazi for the Petitioner submits that
Mutation Entry No.2287 was recorded on 10.12.2010 and Mutation
Entry No. 2156 was recorded on 08.12.2009. He submits that therefore
some delay occurred in challenging the said entries. He further submits
that before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ausa - Renapur, the delay was
properly explained by stating that the Petitioner's father was looking
1
9-WP-12765-2017.odt
after the entire litigation and the Petitioner had no knowledge of the
proceedings. Consequently, he was also unaware of the recording of
the mutation entries. Upon acquiring knowledge thereof, the Petitioner
immediately challenged the same by filing an Application for
condonation of delay. It is submitted that all the authorities have
failed to properly consider the reasons assigned by the Petitioner in the
Application. Therefore, he submits that considering the issue involved,
impugned orders passed by the authorities are liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, Mr. Nandedkar learned Counsel for the Respondents
vehemently opposed the consideration of the present Writ Petition on
the ground that no sufficient cause was shown by the Petitioner in the
Application before the authorities. He further submits that even in the
Writ Petition, no proper grounds have been raised explaining the delay.
He also points out that the present Petition was filed in the year 2017
and, till date, the Petitioner has not taken steps to circulate the matter
for early hearing, as it is still listed under the regular admission
category. According to him, this itself shows that the Petitioner is not
diligent in prosecuting the proceedings. He, therefore, submits that
the present Petition ought not to be entertained.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and upon
perusal of the record, it is evident that, the present matter pertains to
condonation of delay. Though there is delay in challenging the
impugned orders, the record indicates that the same was explained
before the Authorities. Considering the reasons assigned, I am satisfied
that the Petitioner has sufficiently explained the delay and that the
same deserves to be condoned. Hence, the following order is passed:
2
9-WP-12765-2017.odt
ORDER
[I] The Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 18.02.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Case No.ROR/Revision/325/2015, the order dated 11.08.2015 passed by the Additional Collector, Latur in File No.2014/ROR/A-07 and the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ausa - Renapur, are quashed and set aside subject to the payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-. The delay is condoned and appeal be admitted on payment of aforesaid cost.
6. The Petitioner shall deposit the said amount within a period of two weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the amount shall be transmitted to Cancer Hospital, Aurangabad.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/February-2026 3