The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J.G Chitre, J.— The petitioner objects to the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order which has been passed by the learned Member of MRT in the matter of MRT-SH-VIII-11 of 1988 (TEN. L91 of 1988), Pune, dated 31-1-1989 whereby the learned Member dismissed the revision application filed by the present petitioner.
2. The learned Member dismissed the revision application holding that the said revision application suffers the legal invalidity in context with the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. So also he held that the petitioner did not have the locus standi in deciding the said proceeding. Shri Walavalkar, counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the delay has been properly explained and therefore, it was totally an error on the part of the learned Member to come to the conclusion that delay has not been explained satisfactorily. Shri Naik and Mrs Gauri Jadhav justified the said conclusion drawn by the learned Member by submitting that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained and therefore, the learned Member was right in dismissing the said application on that count. Though, the court should be liberal and broad-minded in dealing with the delay condonation application nevertheless the courts are bound to get themselves satisfied whether the litigant coming to the court with prayer for delay condonation was diligent in protecting his legal rights. Therefore, such litigant has to come to the court with convincing ground for showing that he has explained the delay satisfactorily. This Court has examined the judgment and order which has been passed by the learned Member of MRT with appropriate scrutiny and this Court finds that the said conclusion drawn by the learned Member happens to be consistent with the material on record. Therefore, the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner on this ground stand dismissed.
3. Shri Walavalkar submitted that the learned Member was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner did not have the locus standi to contest the said proceeding. It has been countered by Shri Naik and Mrs Jadhav justifying the second conclusion drawn by the learned Member of MRT. Both of them have pointed out that the said land was acquired before 1962 and the possession was obtained in the year 1962. It has been further pointed out that the amount of compensation was disbursed to the husband of the petitioner in the year 1964 and Shri Naik has pointed out that the husband of the petitioner has given in writing to that effect when the possession was handed over to the petitioner i.e Respondent 2. Shri Walavalkar has pointed out that the petitioner has filed civil suit and that is still pending in the civil court. Let that be as it is. It is clear that the petitioner is pursuing her claim in the civil court. What this Court has to see is whether she had locus standi to participate in the said proceeding which was mainly concerned with deleting the names of Respondents 3 and 4 from the record of rights in respect of the said land for which the compensation has been disbursed and has been obtained by the husband of the present petitioner. At this stage it is pertinent to note that as it has been submitted by Shri Naik that the said land was acquired by the Government for a specific purpose and that was for permitting the Factory, Respondent 2 to construct a godown and community hall. It is pertinent to note here that Respondents 3 and 4 did not contest the proceeding and did not oppose the prayer made by Respondent 2 Factory when the Factory wanted to delete their names from the record of rights. In these circumstances the conclusion which has been drawn by the learned Member of MRT happens to be correct, proper and therefore, legal.
4. This Court is exercising the jurisdiction and authority in context with provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, it has to exercise the said jurisdiction in appropriate way. The judgment and order which has been assailed by this petition happens to be correct, proper and legal and therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in it in view of Art. 227 of the Constitution.
5. Thus, the prayer of a writ of certiorari as well as this petition stand dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court shall not weigh adversely against the parties contesting in the said suit. Keeping in view the circumstances of this matter, no order as to costs. The civil suit be disposed of in accordance with the law. The parties are entitled to raise the contentions permissible by law.