Mumbai: The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in Mumbai has dismissed a revision application filed by the heirs of Ramu Vishnu Borade, citing an “inordinate delay” of 62 years in a case related to land in Poisar village, Borivali. The tribunal observed that the application was “time-barred” and the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient.
The Order
“Having regard to the principles laid down in the aforementioned rulings of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in my opinion, the excuses that the applicants are tribals, illiterate and uneducated do not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay of 62 years, particularly when their predecessor Yesu had promptly challenged the Mamlatdar’s orders before the District Deputy Collector, BSD, and had assistance of an advocate. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be erased from the Section of the Limitation Act by adopting an excessively liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of the Act,” the order stated.
About The Case
The case dates back to December 31, 1959, when the Mamlatdar of Borivali dismissed an application filed by Yesu Borade seeking tenancy rights over land owned by M. Bairamaji Jijibhoy Pvt. Ltd. The Mamlatdar rejected their claim and terminated their tenancy on the land.
Yesu Borade then appealed to the District Deputy Collector, who on June 23, 1961, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Mamlatdar’s order.
Advocate D.R. Banavalikar, representing M. Bairamaji Jijibhoy Pvt. Ltd., said that after the 1961 order, the Borade family filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, pleading for the delay to be condoned.
The applicants’ advocate argued that the revision application was filed 62 years after the original order, seeking condonation of delay. They contended that the applicants, being members of a Scheduled Tribe, were “illiterate, uneducated, and unaware of the complications of legal proceedings.” They cited a 2012 government circular from the Revenue and Forest Department granting a 30-year extension for tribals to pursue claims, requesting a “sympathetic” consideration.
However, the respondent’s advocates strongly opposed this. Advocate Banavalikar told FPJ, “The 62-year delay was too long to condone. We pointed out to the tribunal that Yesu Borade had previously engaged legal counsel and contested the case on its merits before the District Deputy Collector, proving he was aware of his legal rights. Also, Borade never challenged the order or the subsequent mutation entry during the 11 years he lived after the 1961 order was passed.”
After hearing the arguments, the tribunal concluded that Yesu Borade was clearly aware of his legal rights, as shown by his challenge to the Mamlatdar’s order and his representation by a lawyer. The tribunal further stated, “The excuse that the applicants are tribals and uneducated does not hold up, given that their predecessor had previously taken legal action. The government circular cited by the applicants is not applicable to proceedings under the Tenancy Act; it pertains to the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.”
The tribunal referred to Supreme Court principles, noting that while a liberal approach can be taken for condoning delays, it cannot be used to “defeat the substantial law of limitation.” The court must weigh the balance of justice for both parties. It also noted that the applicants waited seven years to file the application even after obtaining revenue records in 2016.
