Bombay High Court Quashes Orders Condoning 11-Year Delay in Land Revenue Appeal: Cites Lack of "Sufficient Cause"


09 April 2025 Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

In a significant ruling of B.M.E.-s Bhagyawan Cooperative Housing Society Limited., Mumbai v/s The District Superintendent of Land Records, Mumbai & Others, the Bombay High Court has set aside orders passed by revenue authorities that had condoned an inordinate delay of over 11 years in filing an appeal under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC). The court, in a writ petition challenging these orders, emphasized that a mere assertion of lack of knowledge of an order for such a prolonged period, without a credible explanation and demonstration of due diligence, cannot constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay.

The case involved a dispute concerning land admeasuring approximately 6,521 sq. meters, initially leased to the petitioner-Society by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). A subsequent survey revealed a larger area in possession of the Society, leading to an order in 2005 regarding Non-Agricultural Assessment. Respondent Nos. 3 to 19, claiming ownership of a portion of this land, filed an appeal against the 2005 order in 2016, after a delay of 11 years and 4 months.


 

 

The primary ground cited for the delay was lack of knowledge of the 2005 order until 2015. The Appellate Authority and subsequently the State Government condoned this delay, accepting the explanation and citing general principles of justice and the right to appeal.

However, Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court took a strong stance against this approach. The court meticulously examined the concept of "sufficient cause" under the law, stating that a bald assertion of lack of knowledge for an unreasonable duration is insufficient. The court underscored that the party seeking condonation must provide a credible explanation for the entire period of delay and demonstrate that due diligence was exercised to safeguard their rights.

The High Court criticized the revenue authorities for mechanically applying general principles for condonation of delay without scrutinizing the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The court pointed out that the contesting respondents failed to provide any concrete evidence of their efforts to inquire about their land rights during the 11-year period or explain why they remained unaware of an order with direct legal consequences for such an extended time.

Justice Amit Borkar outlined specific factors that parties seeking condonation of significant delays must demonstrate, including the circumstances of the order's passing and discovery, due diligence exercised, prior efforts to ascertain legal status, absence of constructive knowledge, and whether the order led to manifest changes in status or title that should have been known. The court found a complete absence of such evidence from the contesting respondents.

The court firmly rejected the argument that the subsequent decision of the appeal on merits rendered the writ petition infructuous. It clarified that challenging the condonation of delay is an independent right under the MLRC, and if the condonation itself is deemed illegal, all subsequent proceedings become void.

In its final verdict, the Bombay High Court ruled that the orders condoning the 11-year delay suffered from manifest arbitrariness and non-application of mind. The court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner-Society, effectively quashing the orders that had allowed the belated appeal. This judgment serves as a stern reminder to revenue authorities to exercise their discretion in condoning delays judiciously, ensuring that "sufficient cause" is genuinely established with credible evidence and due regard for the rights accrued due to the passage of time.