Gangotribai  INSC 95 (23 February 1993)
Jagdish Saran (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Venkatachala
1994 AIR 466 1995 SCC Supl. (1) 37
appellant, Warlu, made an application before Addl. Tahsildar, Hinganghat,
District Wardha in State of Maharashtra for a declaration that he 38 was a
tenant of Survey Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of Village Anatargaon. That application was
registered as Revenue Case No. 12. Appellant, Warlu, claimed to be a tenant by
virtue of a lease granted in his favour by Subhadra and Ahilya, daughters of Mahadeorao
through his second wife Parvatibai.
other hand, Gangotribai, the first wife of Mahadeorao filed an application
registered as Revenue Case No. 1 before the Addl. Tahsildar for a declaration
that Warlu and Keshao were not tenants, the right which they claimed in Revenue
Case No. 12. In addition to these two revenue cases, there were two other cases
registered as Revenue Case Nos. 2 and 4 which arose out of references made by
the civil court for deciding the claim of Laxman, Tulshiram and Bani who
claimed to be tenants of the same lands through Gangotribai. These applications
were heard and decided by a common order made by the Addl. Tahsildar who
accepted Warlu's claim of being the tenant of these lands. Against the common
order, made by the Addl. Tahsildar, appeals were filed to the Special Deputy
Collector (Land Reforms), Wardha. In appeal, it was held that the owner was Gangotribai
and not Subhadra and Ahilya and, therefore, the claim made by Warlu as tenant
of these lands was rejected; and the two references made by the civil court
were remanded to the Addl. Tahsildar for inquiry and fresh decision in
accordance with law.
three revisions arising out of these revenue cases were filed before the
Revenue Tribunal by Warlu.
revisions were dismissed.
appellant, Warlu, then filed three Writ Petition Nos. 677, 679 and 760 of 1974
against the common order made by the Land Revenue Tribunal rejecting the three
High Court by a common order dated 20-8-1980 passed in these writ petitions has
rejected all the writ petitions.
said Warlu has filed Civil Appeal No. 244 of 1982 by special leave against the
High Court's order only insofar as it relates to dismissal of Writ Petition No.
677 of 1974.
the common order of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition Nos. 679 and 760 of
1974, Warlu has filed special leave petitions which are barred by 4125 days i.e.
by more than 11 years.
first question is whether there is any ground to condone the delay in filing
the special leave petitions by which the High Court's common order dated 20-8-1980 rejecting Writ Petition Nos. 679 of 1974 and 760 of
1974 has been challenged.
do not find any cogent ground given in the application for condonation of delay
which in law can constitute sufficient cause to explain the inordinate delay in
filing of the special leave petitions. The applications for condonation of
delay (I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1992) in filing the special leave petitions are,
therefore, dismissed resulting in the dismissal of the special leave petitions
as time barred.
question now is of the effect of the dismissal of the special leave petitions
on the tenability of Civil Appeal No. 244 of 1982. The facts stated above
giving rise to this Civil Appeal clearly indicate that after dismissal of the
special leave petitions resulting in finality of the common order dated
20-8-1980 relating to dismissal of Writ Petition Nos. 679 and 760 of 1974,
correctness of that order relating to dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 677 of
1974 cannot be examined for the obvious reason that interference in this appeal
is bound to result in the making of conflicting orders regarding tenancy rights
in the same 39 lands. This alone is sufficient to require dismissal of Civil
Appeal No. 244 of 1982.
Consequently, the above SLPs as well as Civil Appeal No. 244 of 1982 are
dismissed. No one appears for the other side. No costs.