http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: HIRA LAL [DEAD] BY LRS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3) 503        JT 1996 (3)   387  1996 SCALE  (2)819

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  arises from  the order  of the Bombay High Court made on September 1, 1979 in Special Civil Application No.3045 of 1973.      The only  question  in  this  appeal  is:  whether  the appellants are entitled to two more units under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land [Ceiling of Holdings] Act, 1961 [for short, the ’Act’]?      In the High Court it was stated that the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in filing the review petition and the failure  to condone  the delay  was an error apparent on the face  of record.  The High Court did not agree with that contention. On merits, no challenge was made to the order of the  Tribunal   before  the  High  Court.  Mr.  K.  Rajendra Chowdhary, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in his return filed under Section 12 of the Act on April 25, 1962, in  the verification  he had mentioned that apart from himself  he   had  three   sons  and   three  daughters.  In computation of the ceiling area, a family of five members is entitled to  one unit  and if  two more  members are  in the family, each  is entitled to one unit separately. If that is considered, the  finding of  the Tribunal is not correct and that the  appellants are not in excess of 30.4 acres of land but within  the ceiling limit. Therefore, the High Court was not right  in dismissing  the  matter.  In  support  of  the contention that the appellants had three daughters, he seeks to place on record the school certificates said to have been issued by the Head-master concerned.      The only  question is:  whether the High Court is right in its  above-stated conclusion.  The counsel  appearing for the appellants  did not  press anything on merits. He merely argued that  the refusal  to condone the delay in filing the review petition constitutes an error of law. It is seen that the condonation  of delay  is discretion  of the Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be. Whether to grant or to refuse

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

condonation of delay being within the discretionary power of the Court and the Tribunal, we find no compelling reasons to disagree with the findings and the conclusion reached by the authorities. The  question whether  the first  appellant has two members  as three daughters are said to be there, it was open  to   him  to   press  before   the   authorities   but unfortunately he  did not  raise any plea neither before any of the authorities or before the High Court.      In these  circumstances, it would be very difficult for this Court  to rely upon the certificates produced before us without any  investigation  or  a  finding  thereon  by  any authority under  the Act  and to  act upon  the same at this distance of  time. We  find no  merit in  this  appeal.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.