Bombay High Court

BALU MAHADU GADKAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

Section 252(a) does not preclude an appeal against a decision to condone delay, rendering the Deputy Director’s order invalid.

Summary

The applicants, Balu Mahadu Gadkar and others, challenged an order dated 05.05.2022 issued by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, which rejected their appeal on the ground that Section 252(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code barred such an appeal. The High Court had earlier directed the applicants to file a revision before the State Government, but later realized that the factual position—namely that the delay had already been condoned and the appeal admitted—was not before it. Relying on its earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 6966 of 2017, the Court held that Section 252(a) does not preclude an appeal against a decision to condone delay. Consequently, the Court recalled its earlier order, quashed the Deputy Director’s order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. All points were kept open for the parties and any pending civil applications were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether Section 252(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code bars an appeal against a decision to condone delay under Section 251.
Whether the order directing the applicants to file a revision was appropriate in view of the factual circumstances.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — s. 251, 252

Subjects

Land Records
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
Section 252
Condonation of Delay
Appeal
Revision
Writ Petition
Judicial Review

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:33224
1 of 4 921-CA.6609.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

921 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6609 OF 2026
IN WP/6416/2022

BALU MAHADU GADKAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Mr. Chandrakant V. Thombre, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. N. J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4, 7 to 11 in WP is Absent.
…
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6416 OF 2022

BALU MAHADU GADKAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026

P.C.:-

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. By this civil application, the Applicants are seeking review of

order dated 27.01.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6416

of 2022.

3. Mr. Chandrakant V. Thombre, learned Advocate for the

Applicants submits that this Court directed the Applicants/Petitioners

to file revision before the State Government. The short controversy

arising in the petition was that the Deputy Director of Land Records
2 of 4 921-CA.6609.2026

vide its order dated 05.05.2022 rejected the appeal filed by the

Applicants on the ground that there is no provision to appeal under

Section 252(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. But, infact,

the said appeal was filed against rejection of application to condone

the delay. This Court disposed the Writ Petition No.6416 of 2022 by

directing the Applicants to file revision before the State Government.

However, while passing the order dated 27.01.2026, the aspect that

delay had already been condoned and the appeal had been admitted by

the Superintendent of Land Records was not brought to the notice of

this Court. Due to inadvertance and oversight, the factual position was

not brought before the Court. He further submits that this Court in

Writ Petition No.6966 of 2017 decided on 13.02.2019, while

considering identical issue, interpreted Section 252 of the Code.

4. Mr. S. S. Dande, learned AGP for the Respondent-State,

supports the order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Respondent No.2–

Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad and prays to reject the

present civil application.

5. Having gone through the submissions advanced and the

judgment cited by the learned Advocate for the Applicants, it is clear

that the issue involved in the present application has already been

decided by this Court. In paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the said judgment,

this Court has observed thus:-
3 of 4 921-CA.6609.2026

“5. Section 252 of the MLR Code reads as under :

'' 252. No appeal shall lie from an order_

(a) admitting an appeal or an application for review under
section 251;

(b) rejecting an application for revision or review; or

6. Having regard to section 252 (a), it appears that appeal is
not provided against admission of appeal or an application for
review under section 251 of the MLR Code. It thus appears that
appeal against decision of condonation of delay is not precluded.”

6. In Writ Petition No.6966 of 2017, this Court had came to the

conclusion that under Section 252, an application for condonation of

delay is not precluded from appealing. Adopting the same view, I am

inclined to recall the order dated 27.01.2026, thereby allowing the writ

petition by setting aside the order dated 05.05.2022 passed by

Respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Land records, Aurangabad.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition No.6416 of 2022 is partly allowed.

(ii) The order dated 05.05.2022 in Case/Consolidation

/Appeal/KV-213/2022 passed by Respondent No.2-

Deputy Director of Land Record, Aurangabad is hereby

quashed and set aside.

(iii) The matter is remanded to Respondent No.2-Deputy

Director of Land Records, Aurangabad to decide afresh
4 of 4 921-CA.6609.2026

on its own merits.

(iv) All points are kept open for the parties.

(v) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…