Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The present case raises an important question concerning the appellate and revisional remedies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLRC"). During the hearing, it became apparent that there is a direct conflict of interpretation in the judgments of this Court regarding the scope of appeal and revision against an order condoning delay and admitting an appeal under the MLRC. The conflicting views expressed in several decisions by coordinate Benches have created uncertainty in the application of Sections 251, 252, 255, 257, and 259 of the MLRC.

Factual Context:

9. In the case at hand, the Sub-Divisional Officer ("SDO") - acting as the first appellate authority under the MLRC - condoned a significant delay in filing an appeal and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits. The aggrieved Petitioner (original respondent in the revenue appeal) sought to challenge that condonation order before the next higher revenue authority (the Additional Collector). The Additional Collector, however, declined to entertain the challenge, observing that under the MLRC no appeal lies from the SDO's order admitting the appeal after condoning delay, and that such an order is final, amenable only to the State wp2103-2021 & wp2105-2021-F.doc Government's revisional power. The Petitioner has therefore invoked this Court's writ jurisdiction, contesting the correctness of the Additional Collector's refusal. This scenario squarely calls for an interpretation of the MLRC's appellate scheme, and it brings into focus the conflicting High Court precedents on the point.

Statutory Framework under the MLRC:

10. Section 251 - Admission of Appeal after Limitation: Section 251 empowers an appellate authority to admit an appeal (or application for review) even after the prescribed limitation period, if the appellant shows sufficient cause for the delay. In effect, this provision allows condonation of delay and permits a belated appeal to be heard on merits. An order under Section 251 does not decide the merits of the appeal; it only removes the time-bar by admitting the appeal late.

Contrary View in Sadanand Tukaram Suroshe (2024):

19. A divergent view was forcefully expressed by a later Single Judge in Sadanand Tukaram Suroshe v. Ashok Gajanan Suroshe & Ors. (W.P. No. 12965 of 2023, decided 28 March 2024). In that case, Co-ordinate Bench examined the scheme of Sections 251, 252, 255 and 259 closely and held that the MLRC does not permit any appeal to the Additional Collector against an order of the SDO admitting an appeal after condoning delay. The Court concluded that by virtue of Section 252, "the order of SDO admitting the appeal after condoning the delay is not appealable", and "the only remedy available to the petitioner is the remedy of revision. Further, addressing the proper forum for such revision, the judgment held that "by virtue of Section 259 of the MLRC, the wp2103-2021 & wp2105-2021-F.doc order admitting the appeal being final as no appeal lies from such decision, the revision would lie before the State Government." In other words, Sadanand Suroshe decided that an aggrieved party must approach the State Government in revision and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the immediate appellate/revisional officer (such as an Additional Collector). This marked a clear departure from the Balwant Thale line of cases.