Bombay High Court
ASHOK BHAGWAN JAHAGIRDAR AND OTHERSversusTHE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER CH SAMBHAJINAGAR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The order rejecting the condonation application was deficient for lack of reasons, and the writ petition is partly allowed, remitting the matter to the Divisional Commissioner for a reasoned order.
Summary
The petitioners, heirs of a deceased Inamdar, sought a grant of Virasat for an Inam property but filed the application 42 years after the death of the Inamdar. Their application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner with a one‑line order lacking reasons. The petitioners argued that the authority was statutorily obliged to give a reasoned order, and that the earlier writ petition did not challenge the main order. The Court found that the impugned order was deficient for not providing cogent reasons and that the facts concerning succession were admitted, leaving only the merit of the delay condonation to be decided. Accordingly, the Court partially allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Divisional Commissioner to pass a reasoned order on the condonation application and, if granted, to decide the Virasat application.
Issues considered
- Whether the Divisional Commissioner was required to pass a reasoned order on the application for condonation of delay.
- Whether the writ petition can be entertained despite the 42‑year lapse in filing the original succession application.
- Whether the matter should be remitted to the Divisional Commissioner for fresh consideration of the delay condonation and subsequent Virasat application.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- reasoned order
- Virasat
- Inam property
- succession
- administrative law
- high court writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40231
(1) 909 WP 6104 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
909 WRIT PETITION NO. 6104 OF 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9948 OF 2026
IN WP/6104/2024
1. Ashok Bhagwan Jahagirdar
Age: 60 years, Occu: Priest
R/o Domgaon, Tq. Paranda,
District: Osmanabad
At Present R/o: Telephone Nagar,
Behind Datta Vidya Mandir School,
Upalai Road, Barshi, Tq. Barshi,
District: Solapur.
2. Smt. Laxmibai wd/o Bhagwan Jahagirdar
Age: 84 years, Occu. Household,
R/o: Same as above.
3. Mrs. Anuradha w/o Balkrishna Kulkarni
Age: 57 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Vivekanant Nagar, Pandharpur-
Satara Road, Vakhari, Tq. Pandharpur,
District: Solapur.
4. Mrs. Usha w/o Ashok Thombare
Age: 55 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Behind Taluka Police Station,
Besides Dr. Benare Hospital,
Pandharpur, Tq. Pandharpur,
District: Solapur. ...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Ch. Sambhajinagar.
Fazalpura, Near Delhi Gate,
Tq. & Dist. Ch. Sambhajinagar.
(2) 909 WP 6104 OF 2024
2. The Sub Divisional Officer (Atiyat)
Bhoom, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Dharashiv.
3. State of Maharashtra
Through District Collector,
District: Dharashiv. ...Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. V. Natu, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : 02.09.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition could be
conveniently disposed of at the admission stage considering the short issue
placed before me.
2. Facts in brief :
a. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.1's father namely Bhagwan
Jahagirdar, was Inamdar of Kalyan Swami Math at Mauje Domgaon, Tq.
Paranda, Dist. Dharashiv. Bhagwan Jahagirdar expired in 1962. Petitioner
No.1 was a minor at the relevant time. His mother was illiterate and hence
they could not get Virasat sanctioned in their names from the competent
(3) 909 WP 6104 OF 2024
authority.
b. Suffice to note, their names were immediately mutated in the revenue
record pertaining to the Inam property in the capacity of legal representatives
of deceased Inamdar namely Bhagwan Jahagirdar. Almost 42 years later, the
petitioners filed a proceeding before the Divisional Commissioner for grant of
Virasat. An application for condonation of delay, explaining the genuine
reasons for filing the proceeding at a belated stage, was also filed. The said
application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 26.07.2006.
Hence, this petition is filed by the petitioners.
3. Submissions :
Per S. V. Natu, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
a. That, despite there having been substantial reasons given for
condonation of delay, the Divisional Commissioner was under an obligation to
render a reasoned order on the delay condonation application.
b. Suffice to note, he submits that the impugned order dated 26.07.2006
was immediately taken in further proceedings wrongly before the Hon'ble
Minister for Revenue and Forest Department on wrong legal advice. The
appeal before the Hon'ble Minister was rejected for want of jurisdiction. A
(4) 909 WP 6104 OF 2024
review application was filed which was also turned down. As against that Writ
Petition No.792 of 2016 was filed before this Court. The said Writ Petition
came to be dismissed by this Court on 18.10.2023.
c. Mr. Natu, learned Advocate on a query as to whether the said order
would hit the present proceeding, submits that the said writ petition was only
to the extent of the order passed in the review application. He submits that
this Court has observed that the main order was not under challenge before
this Court. In view of this, Mr. Natu submits that the writ petition be allowed
and the matter be relegated back to the Divisional Commissioner with
directions to pass an appropriate order.
Per Mr. R. K. Ingole Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader
a. Mr. R. K. Ingole Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent authorities would stand by the order dated 26.07.2006. He would
submit that proceeding are apparently filed after 42 years. His further
contention is that the petitioners cannot take benefit of their own wrong for
prosecuting the proceedings before a wrong forum and hence the writ petition
be dismissed.
(5) 909 WP 6104 OF 2024
4. Considerations :
a. I heard both the sides extensively.
b. It is an undisputed fact that petitioner No.1's father namely Bhagwan
Jahagirdar was the Inamdar of the said property. He died in 1962 when
petitioner No.1 was quite a minor i.e. seven years old. It cannot be overlooked
that the names of petitioner No.1, his mother and siblings were recorded in
the mutation record of the Inam property within time. It is only when the
issue of disbursement of compensation against the acquired land out of the
Inam property arose, the petitioners got aware of the requirement to obtain
succession i.e. Virasat from the competent authority as regards the Inam and
hence the proceedings were initiated.
c. It is fairly submitted that the proceedings before the Hon'ble Revenue
Minister were based on wrong advice and hence after pursuing the
proceedings, the present Petition has been filed. Pertinent to note that
although there was Writ Petition No.792 of 2016, the said Writ Petition did not
touch the merits of the order dated 26.07.2006.
d. Now, coming to the impugned order, it is apparent that the order is a
single-line order observing that there is no substantial reason for condonation
of delay. The authority, when it is under an obligation to deal with a statutory
(6) 909 WP 6104 OF 2024
appeal or application therein, is expected to pass a reasoned order, right or
wrong as the case may be, and should decide the matter accordingly.
e. While the application filed by petitioner No.1 at page No.38 of the
compilation shows that there are substantial reasons rendered by the
petitioners, the same ought to have been considered by the Divisional
Commissioner. It is pertinent to note that, so far as the other heirs of the
petitioner's family i.e. real cousins are concerned, they got the Virasat
sanctioned from the competent authority.
f. In view of this, when almost all the facts are admitted, what remains to
be decided is as to whether the contents of the application for Virasat are true
or not. For that, the competent authority may proceed with the application on
its merits. However, so far as the application for condonation of delay is
concerned, I find that the impugned order is deficient even to reject the
application with cogent reasons.
g. In view of this, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition remitting
the matter back to the Divisional Commissioner for passing reasoned order on
delay condonation application. Needless to mention the Divisional
Commissioner is expected to take into consideration all the aspects of the
matter while considering the application for condonation of delay.
(7) 909 WP 6104 OF 2024
5. In view of this, I pass following order :
ORDER
I. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
II. The matter is relegated back to the Divisional
Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for fresh
consideration in view of the above observation.
III. The petitioners shall appear before the Divisional
Commissioner on 21.09.2026. The Divisional Commissioner
shall pass appropriate order on the delay condonation
application within two months thereafter.
IV. If the petitioners succeed in convincing the Divisional
Commissioner on the point of delay, the Divisional
Commissioner shall pass further orders on the
application/proceeding within three months thereafter.
V. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
VI. Papers be remitted to the office of the Divisional
Commissioner, if necessary.
VII. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
VIII. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW
Checking your session…