Vidarbha Cricket Association, Nagpur vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and others

R.M. Savant, J.—Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.

The above petition takes exception to the order dated 24-1-2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, by which the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner in filing the restoration application for restoring the Revision Application No. S-44/2/2008-09 came to be rejected.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, there was a delay of 14 days in filing the said application. The petitioner filed the said application under an impression that such an application is required to be filed within 30 days of the proceeding being dismissed in default. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 the State Government is vested with the powers to go into the legality or propriety of any order passed by any officer under the said Act at any time for the purposes of satisfaction. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view thereof there is no limitation prescribed for the respondents for the exercise of revisionary powers. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application was not required to be filed much less to be rejected on the ground of there being delay. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 Shri Gaikwad and the learned Counsel Shri Kale for respondent No. 3 do not dispute the said proposition which has been made on the basis of section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. In my view therefore the, rejection of the application for condonation of delay would be of no consequence, though in cases where no limitation is prescribed, the challenge has to be raised within a reasonable period.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, as also the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 in the course of the hearing of the above petition fairly submit that, in spite of the application for restoration being heard, the revision filed by the petitioner itself be directed to be heard and disposed of within the time stipulated by this Court. The above Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and with the following directions are issued.

a) The order dated 24-1-2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division Nagpur in the Revision Application filed u/s 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 is set aside.

b) The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur is directed to decide the said revision within a period of two months from the date of first appearance of the parties.

c) Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Counsel for Petitioner, Shri Gaikwad and Shri Kale, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 state that the parties would appear before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur on 25th July, 2011 at 3.00 pm. The Additional Commissioner thereafter to dispose of the revision application within two months of the said date,

d) The parties to co-operate in the early disposal of the revision application.

Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. With parties to bear their own costs.