IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJIT SAKHARE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUMBAI WESTERN SUBURBAN ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, 9TH FLOOR, NEAR CHETANA COLLEGE. BANDRA (E) MUMBAI - 400 051 No.DLN/RTS/A-18/2012 Ain situa Aggarwal ¥. East & West Builders, RNA Corporate Park, Govt. Colony, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), a Mumbai-400 041. gh Vis . Mis Atlanta Ltd > 101, Shree Amba Shanti Chambers, ao Opp. Hotel Leela, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumba . Smt. Maunbai Alias Motibai Niklaw Vaity . Smt, Jyotsna Zujayavaity both residing at Matruchhay, Bunder Pakhadi, M.G. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 087 . Shri, Anthony N. Vaity . Shri. Joseph N. Vaity both residing at 272, Niklaw Chawl, Bunder Pakhadi, Near Guray Garens, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-57. 6. Smt, Anubai alias Jyoti Stanely Patil Sandesh Patil House, Near Hanuman Temple, Dharavi Garden, Mumbai-400 022 7. Smt. Damubai Jaywant Shivadekar House No.39/C, Khan Galli, Worli Koliwada, Mumbai-400 025 8. Kum. Ezable N. Vaity Matruchhay, Bunder Pakhadi, M.G. Road, Kandiyali (W), Mumbai-400 087 9. Mr. Zujya Jav Koli 19. Mr. Santaton Jay Koli 11. Mr. Kaitan Jav Koli 12. Mr. Austine J. Koli all residing at Bhati Koliwada, Post Madh, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 061. 13. Mr. Branza alias Budhaji Andu Vaity 14, Mr. Juran Andrew Vaity 15. Mrs. Kisanibai Pitar Vaity 16, Noel Peter Vaity 17. Mrs, Navina Joseph Rodriques 18. Mary Francis Voithy all residing at Bundar Pakhadi Village, Vait House, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067. i 19. Mr. Wilson Joyv Koli 20, Mr. Francis Paskol Koli » weIN THE COURT OF SHRI AJIT SAKHARE, ‘SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUMBAI WESTERN SUBURBAN, [AOMINISTRATIVE BULOING, STH FLOOR, NEAR GETANA COLLEGE, BANDRA fe) MUMEA!- 400051 LN/RTSIA-18/2012 Me Anilkumar Aggarwal East & West Builders, RNA Corporate Park, Govt. Colony, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 041 _-Appellant. Vis 1, Mis Atlanta Ltd 401, Shree Amba Shanti Chambers, Opp. Hotel Leela, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai. 2. Smt. Maunbai Alias Motibai Niklaw Vaity 3, Smt, Jyotsna Zujayavaity both residing at Matruchhay, Bunder Pakhadi, M.G. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 087 4. Shri, Anthony N. Vaity 5, Shri, Joseph N. Vaity both residing at 272, Niklaw Chawl, Bunder Pakhadi, Near Gurav Garens, Kandivali (W), Mumba-S7. 6. Smt. Anubai alias Jyoti Stanely Patil ‘Sandesh Patil House, Near Hanuman Temple, = Dharavi Garden, Mumbai-400 022 7. Smt. Dumubai Jaywant Shivadekar House No.39/C, Khan Galli, Worli Koliwada, Mumbai-400 025 8. Kum, Ezable N. Vaity Matruchhay, Bunder Pakhadi, MG. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 087, 9. Mr. Zujya Jav Koli 10. Mr. Santaton Jav Koli 4141. Mr, Kaitan Jav Koli 12. Mr. Austine J. Koli all residing at Bhati Koliwada, Post Madh, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 061. 13, Mr. Branza alias Budhaji Andu Vaity 44, Mr. Juran Andrew Vaity 45. Mrs. Kisanibai Pitar Vaity 48. Noal Peter Vaity 17. Mrs, Navina Joseph Rodriques 48. Mary Francis Voithy all residing.at Bundar Pakhadi Village, Vait House, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067. 48, Mr. Wilson Joyy Koli 20, Mr. Francis Paskol Koli 21. Mr. Bastyav Francis Koli 22. Mr. Rayman Faneis Kol 23, Mrs. Leena William Kol 24. Ms. Valina Vilin Koli 25, Mir Teres Pasku Surgide 28. Mr. Augustine Pascol Koli 6 NN ma an 27. Denis Pascal Koli 1 lee 4 tl \5) The appeliant was not given any notice of cerfification of Mutation Entry No. 1787 of 19/5/2011 and as such the appellant was not aware of the same til the appellant took the 7/12 extract in respect of the said land described hereinabove, on or around end January 2012. The appellant tock further search and thereafter applied to the Talathi, Village- Kandivali, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District for a certified copy’ of 7/12 extract and Mutation Entry No.1787 of 13/5/2011. The Talathi Village- Kandivali, Taluka- Borivali, M.S.D. issued certified true copy of 7/12 extract and mutation entry No.1787 of 13/5/2011. The appellant is entitled to exclude the period of time between the date of cerfification and also from the date of ap certified copies and excluding the said period the appeal is within the time. tion for In any case in the event this Hon'ble Authority comes to the conclusion that the present appeal is not filed within the period of limitation in that event such délay deserves to be condoned in the interest of natural justice, equity and fair play the same being absolutely unintentional and beyond the control of appellant. The appellant come to know about the certification of mutation eniry no. 1787 only when the appellant took 7/12 extract in respect of the said land described hereinabove, on or around end January 2012, the present appeal in time and not barred by limitation. There is no deliberate or intentional delay on the part of appellant and the appellant regrets for delay, if any. The statement of Respondent Ni 4) That the issue concerning the title of the suit land is directly and substantially pending before the City Civi, High Court and Appeliate Court and therefore it is in the interest of justice that pending the adjudication of the dispute between the parties, this application is adjourned sine-die. 2) That the various litigation between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter are sub-judice before the various judicial fora. The details thereof are more particularly set out in the Annexure-1 annexed hereto and therefore justice demands that the present application for condonation of the delay along with the appeal 18 of 2012 be adjourned sine-die pending adjudication of the issues between the parties fully and finally. bove, it was within 3) That, without prejudice to what is stated hereit knowledge of the appellant that the declaration of Suit No, (L) 1962 of 2011 was filed by the Respondent No.1 against the appellant inter-alia seeking reliefs that appellant, his servants, agent and any person claiming through him cannot claim ownership or any other rights, title and interest in the suitJurisdication not vested by law resulting in miscarriage of Justice. Respondents deny that they have not disclosed or suppressed true fact of previous ‘registration of agreement, confirmation deed and execution of conveyance in favor of appellant as alleged of otherwise. e 3) It is denied that the Respondents No.2 to 27 never has / have any ‘ownership saleable and /or transferable rights, ttle and interest in respect of land at any time on and after 22/02/2007 and cease to be owner of he said land, Since the Respondent No.2 to 27 were/are devoid of any rights, titles and interest ownership or possession in respect of the said land. 4) Respondents No.2 to 27 deny that they were not competent to execute conveyance and Respondent no.1 not competent to obtain subsequent deed of conveyance and the deed of conveyance so executed and registered are null and void and no valid and legal right is transferred by Respondent Nos. 2 to 27 and acquired by Respondent No.1 lawful which could be reported or recorded. The conveyance executed by the Respondents in favour of Respondent no.1 is legal, valid and binding til itis set aside by competent civil court. 5) Respondent no.1 filled suit in high court bearing no. 1969/2011 wherein appellant is party this goes to show that appellant was aware about the right of the Respondents no.1 inland is dispute since 2011 therefore the contentions of appellant that they weie not aware of the rights of the Respondents material facts for obtaining the favorable order. 6) In the light of the above contention of the appellant that the present appeal is fled in time and that there is no deliberant or intentional delay on the part of appellant cannot be accepted. From the above it will be clear that 2012 is not correct and appellant is suppressing the appellant failed to file present appeal within period of limitation in spite of the knowledge about the same. There is no sufficient just and satisfactory reasons for condonation of delay. Eindina: Ihave gone through the written arguments filed by both advocates on the point of delay and document furnished by the contending parties. In this matter it is seen that the Respondents No.2 to 27 have executed Agreement for sale, confirmation deed and the execution of conveyance amongst others in favour of appellant was not disclosed but suppressed. Apart from this the matter was subjudice before the various judicial fora and the M.E. No. 1787 is posted and certified by the Talathi Saja Kandivali and Circle Office, Kurar on21. Mr, Bastyay Francis Koli 22. Mr. Rayman Fancis Koli 23. Mrs. Leena William Koli 24. Ms. Valina Vilin Koli 25. Mrs. Teres Pasku Surpide 26. Mr. Augustine Pascol Koli 27. Denis Pascol Koli 28, Mrs, Jabla Stevan Saladana all residing at Madh Dongar Pada, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 061. 29, Tahsildar Borivali 30. Circle Officer Borivali gli -Respondent. Application u/s_247 of M. ode 1966 The applicants above named have filed an appeal under section 247 of MLR. Code 1966 against the M.E.No.1787 dt. 13/5/2011, in Respect of the alnd Bearing Vos 88/1.88/2,88/4.88/5.91/1 of village- Kandivali, Taluka- Borivali, Mumbai Suburban Di ict. The said application will be heard im my Chamber at the above mentioned address on 31/01/2014 at 11.30 a.m. You are, therefore requested to appear before the undersigned either in person or through legally authorised agent along with the documentary evidence in support of your say and plead your case. Failure to attend the hearing on the date. time and place. as stipulated above, it shall be présumed that you have nothing to say in the matter and the matter will be decided ex-parte on nerit, which please note. Date: 18/01/2014 Mumbai Western Suburban Place : Bandra, Mumbai. Sub-I “ei fficer,28. Mrs. Jabala Stevan Saladana 5 all residing at Madh Dongar Pada, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 061 29. Tahsildar Borivali 5 30. Circle Officer Borivali srveearumREspondents, The above named appellant has filed an appeal against the certification of Mutation Entry No.1787 dated 13/5/2011 in respect of the land bearing S.No. 88/4, 88/2, 88/4, 88/5 and 91/1 of Village-Kandivali, Taluke-Borivali, M.S.D hereinafter called as “Suit Land’. The appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay along with the appeal memo. The hearing was fixed from time to time on the point of delay and it was finally heard on 20/3/2013 when on behalf of appellant the Advocate V.V. Karmarkar appeared and on behalf of Respondent No.1 Smt ‘Shradhe Khanwilkar was Present. Respondent No.2 to 28 Advocate Leena Phadke Present. All advocates argued on the point of delay and matter was closed for decision. The Contention of the appelia 1) Facts of the above registered agreement’ ‘coniin respectively thereof and the execution of conveyance amongst others in favour of appellants was not disclosed but suppressed. 2) Respondent No.2 to 27 never had/ have any ownership, saleable and/ or transferable rights, titles and interests in respect of the said land at any time on and after 22/2/2907 and cease to be the owner of the said land, Since Respondent No.2 to 27 were/ are devoid of any rights, titles and interests, ‘ownership or possession in respect ofthe sald land 3) Respondent No.2 to 27 were/ are not Competent to execute and Respondent No.1 not competent to obtain ‘subsequent deed of conveyance and the Deed of conveyance so executed and: registered, are null and void and no valid and legal right is transferred by Respondent No.2 to 27 and acquired by Respondent No.1 lawfully which could be reported or recorded, 4) The appellant is not party to the Mutation, proceeding. and no notice or intimation was served upon or received by the appellant. The Appellant was not aware of the mutation Proceedings and the order under appeal obtained behind his back. jon and registrationland on the basis of purported agreement. for sale, purported power of attoriey, purported coriveyance and purported rectification deed. Despite knowing this the appellant failed to act vigilantly and filed belated appeal. ‘Therefore the contention of the applicant that the present appeal is within time and that no deliberate or intentional delay on the part, of the appellant holds no grounds. : 4) That the Mutation Entry No.1787 dated 13" May 2011 challenged on 9” March 2012 by way of this appeal, which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 60 days and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5) That the application lacks the relevant and material particulars as to the date when it come to its knowledge about the said Mutation Entry and how many days in filing the appeal. Even with all this. latitude there no explanation offered or sufficient cause shown for the delay by the appellant. There Is plethora of judgments of.the Hon'ble Apex-Court that-delay of each day is required to be explained with sufficient cause and any application for condonation of delay, in the appeal should not be taken lightly. The appellant has failed to explain any sufficient cause or ground for delay. In the absence of any sufficient cogent and satisfactory reasons, the delay cannot be condoned and as such the appeal and application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed summarily with costs. 6) That there are latches and lacuna on the part of the applicant for long period of 6 years for mutation process to mutate his name in revenue records and as such the appellant is not entitled to any reliefs whether equitable or otherwise. ‘The contentions of Respondent No. 2 to 4 41) At the outset these Respondents state that the matter being subjudice before the City Civil Court at Dindoshi and before High Court, Bombay this authority cannot entertain ‘and disposed off the present appeal along with the applications as the issues involved are already before higher authority. 2), Respondents submits that when similar issues are being subject matter of litigation before higher court and issues concerning the title are under challenge this authority cannot consider the same and pass any order as prayed, Respondents deny that the order under appeal is against facts, circumstances and evidences on record and contrary to law, principals natural justice, equity and good conscience. Respondents deny that the honorable talathi has exceeded Jurisdication and/ or exercised thethe basis of documents and inforation fumished by the Respondent No.1 The Respondent has not disclosed at that time there ard itigations Pending in the various courts. Further the ‘Revenue Aithsiity is not a party to the litigations Pending before the’Hon'ble City’Civil Court at Mumbai or other court. Hence the application of condonation ‘of delay cannot be ‘adjourned sine-die. In view of these facts whatever delay required to'be condoried in the interest of natural {ustice. Moreover the'delay is not deliberately and absence of negligence or in action is not precondition. To achieve the goal of substantial justice, the words Sufficient cause’ occuring In’ section & of limitation Act are required to be interpreted liberally. inthe result, | pass the following order. ORDER “The application of applicant for condonation of delay is allowed and delay is hereby condoned. The next date of heating is fixed'on 477/ of 12018 at |) A.M. Both parties should attend the hearing without fail” ( Ay — ‘SUB DIVIS[ONAL OFFICER > MUMBAI WESTERN SUBURBAN