NIRLON LIMITED vs JANHAVI SITARAM DESAI

2026:BHC-OS:6646
OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5398 OF 2025
Nirlon Limited ]
A public listed company having its ]
Registered office at Pahadi Village, ]
Nirlon Knowledge Park, off the ]
Western Express Highway, Goregaon ]
Mumbai-400 063 ]
Through its authorized signatory ]
Mr. Jasmin K. -Bhavsar, Company ]
Secretary & Vice President (Legal) ]
an adult Indian Inhabitant, aged 53 ]
years, Occ: Service, having his office ]
at Nirlon Ltd; Pahadi Village, ]
Nirlon Knowledge Park, off the Western ]
Express Highway, Goregaon (East) ]
Mumbai-400 063 ] …Petitioner

V/s.
1. Janhavi Sitaram Desai ]
An adult, Indian, Inhabitant, ]
Age : 41 Years, Occ-Business, ]
having her office address ]
at Tiecion House, 05th Floor, Dr. E ]
Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, ]
Mumbai- 400 011 ]
2. The Collector (M.S.D) ]
Having its office address at 10th Floor, ]
Administrative Building, Government ]
Colony, Bandra (East), ]
Mumbai-400051 ]
3. The District Superintendent of ]
Land Records (M.S.D) ]
Having its office address at 10th Floor, ]
Administrative Building, Government ]
Colony, Bandra (East), ]
Mumbai-400051 ]
1/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
4. Additional Commissioner Konkan ]
Division, Mumbai ]
Having its office address as 15, ]
Madame Cama Road, Near City ]
Civil Court, Fort, Mumbai 32 ]
5. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Government Pleader ]
having his/her Office at Hon’ble ]
Bombay High Court ] … Respondents
______________________________________
Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar Sr. Adv a/w Mr. Rahul Khedkar, Mr. Vinod
Kothari, Mr. Kshitij Parekh i/by Apex Law Partners for the Petitioner.
Mr. Hasan Sayed a/w Mr. R.A. Shaikh, Ms. Swati Margi for the
Respondent No.1.
Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP for the Respondent No 2 to 5.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 9 February 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 13 March 2026.
JUDGEMENT:
1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the
Order dated 8th April 2024 ("impugned Order") passed by the
Additional Commissioner Konkan Division ("Respondent No. 4") in
Appeal /DESK /LND / 59/ 2023 ("the Appeal") along with the
Application for condonation of delay ("delay application") whereby
the Respondent No. 4 condoned delay of 13 years and 07 months and
21 days in filing an Appeal.
2/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
Brief Facts
2. Nanubhai Industries Private Limited (Nirlon Limited) – the
Petitioner originally acquired the following piece and parcel of lands
(“said property”) by virtue of a Sanad document / Agreement dated
th
18 August 1962.
Village Survey No. Hissa No. Area
Acres Gunthas Ares
Goregaon 12 Part
1 25 8
13
4 24 0
14 1 Part 5 12 0
Pahadi 130 2 0 23 0
139 2 0 29 8
140 1 Part
7 14 0
141 Part
7 3 0
142 Part
8 4 0
As and by way of abundant precaution, by a registered
nd
indenture dated 22 September 1964 the Petitioner obtained
confirmation from the owner Sitaram Narayan Desai (“Sitaram”), the
father of Respondent No.1 for valuable consideration.
3. Thereafter, by a registered indenture dated 31st March 1965,
the Petitioner purchased from the Respondent no.1’s father Sitaram
3/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
Narayan Desai the following additional properties for valuable
consideration.
Village Survey No. Hissa No. Area
Acres Gunthas Ares
Goregaon 11 (Part) 0 184 22384
Pahadi 129 9
0 1 121
143 11
0 8 968
142 (Part) 1 8 58.8
141 Part
7 3 0
142 Part 8 4 0
4. Accordingly, the Petitioner became a lawful owner of various
plots of lands on either side of the two villages i.e. Village Pahadi and
Village Goregaon.
5. Nearly forty-four years later, pursuant to a letter dated 26th
October 2009, issued by the Collector ("Respondent No. 2"), area
correction proceedings were initiated by the City Survey Authorities
in respect of the lands at Malad, Pahadi Goregaon, and Goregaon.
6. Pursuant to the survey, the Respondent No. 2 passed an Order
dated 2nd March 2010, ("Area Correction Order") thereby effecting
necessary area corrections and mutation entries in the revenue
records reflecting the ownership of the Petitioners under Sections
4/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
106 and 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
(“MLRC”).
7. The Correction Order caused a gap between the two villages
admeasuring approximately 1728.5 sq. mtrs. For ease of reference,
the scanned copies of coloured sketch of the plans of the said
properties are annexed to this Judgment as Plan ‘X’ and ‘X-1’.
8. The plan ‘X’ records the various land parcels purchased by the
Petitioner coloured in green, yellow and blue shades. The thick yellow
line seen in the center of plan ‘X’ represents the boundary depicting
the gap that has arisen between the Village Pahadi, Goregaon and
nd
Village Goregaon in view of the Correction Order dated 2 March,
2010 that for identification is encircled in blue color in the plan ‘X-1’.
9. The Petitioner has been enjoying peaceful and uninterrupted
possession of the said lands over four decades and has undertaken
substantial development on the said lands and even created third-
party rights.
10. In the year 2023, the Respondent No. 1, the daughter of the
erstwhile owner Sitaram, claiming some right, title, or interest in the
said lands, preferred an Appeal along with the delay application
seeking delay of 13 years, 07 months, and 21 days before the
5/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
Respondent No. 4, challenging the Area Correction Order dated 2nd
March 2010.
11. By an order dated 8th April 2024 (impugned order), the
Respondent No. 1’s Appeal was allowed and delay condoned. The
impugned order is challenged in this Petition.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
12. Dr. Tulzapurkar, anticipating the objection of the Respondent
regarding the maintainability of the Petition, submits that a Writ
under Article 226 is maintainable where there has been a violation of
principle of natural justice. In support of this contention, reliance is
placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool
1
Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Others .
13. Then drawing attention to the impugned order, Dr Tulzapurkar
submits that the Respondent No. 4 has failed to record reasons for
condoning the delay, which itself constitutes a sufficient ground for
entertaining a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
According to him the Respondent No. 4 has erroneously assumed
jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal without first satisfying the
foundational requirement of a valid and maintainable application for
condonation of delay.
1 (1998) 8 SCC 1
6/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
14. He contended that unless and until a proper application,
strictly in compliance with the requirements of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, is duly preferred and considered, the appellate
authority cannot assume jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the
Appeal on merits.
15. Referring to the delay Application filed by the Respondent No.1,
he submits that the explanation offered for the monumental delay
was a bald and vague assertion of being "occupied in management" of
the property, which by no stretch of imagination constitutes
"sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963.
16. The application for condonation of delay was strongly opposed
by the Petitioner by filing a detailed Affidavit in Reply, pointing out
that the delay was not only inordinate but also wholly unexplained,
and that valuable and substantive rights had vested in the Petitioner,
which could not be disturbed at such a belated stage.
17. Additionally, in response to the rejoinder of the Respondent
No.1, the Petitioner also filed an Affidavit in Sur-Rejoinder to counter
new averments made by the Respondent No. 1.
18. The matter was heard on various dates. It is pertinent to
7/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
mention that on 17th July 2023, a report was tendered by the City
Survey Office. However, a copy of the report was never furnished to
the Petitioner, thereby denying the Petitioner an opportunity to rebut
its contents, and resulting in a clear violation of the principles of
natural justice.
19. Dr. Tulzapurkar further submits that the Respondent No. 4 has
failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law while
adjudicating the delay application. According to him, Respondent No.
4 has failed to appreciate that Respondent No. 1 did not disclose any
legally sustainable or cogent explanation justifying condonation of an
inordinate delay of nearly 13 years. In the absence of material
demonstrating bonafide conduct, due diligence, or continuous
prosecution of remedy, such extraordinary delay could not have been
condoned.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.1
20. Per Contra Mr. Sayyed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Respondent No.1, raised a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of the present Petition on the ground of availability of
an efficacious alternate statutory remedy to the Petitioner.
21. He submits that the impugned order being an interlocutory
8/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
order passed in exercise of appellate powers, the Petitioner ought to
pursue remedies within the statutory framework rather than invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction.
22. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 further submits
that the expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, is required to be construed liberally in order to
advance substantial justice. According to Respondent No. 1,
technicalities of limitation ought not to defeat adjudication on merits,
particularly in matters involving property rights.
23. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was
neither intentional nor deliberate. According to Respondent No. 1,
circumstances beyond control prevented timely filing, and the
explanation furnished before Respondent No. 4 was bona fide. It is
contended that the authority was satisfied with the explanation and
exercised discretion judiciously.
24. He further submits that while considering an application for
condonation of delay, the Respondent No. 4 is entitled to take into
account the prima facie merits of the appeal, so as to avoid
miscarriage of justice. According to Respondent No. 1, the Appeal
raises serious issues relating to title and legality of the impugned
9/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
revenue entries, and therefore, the authority rightly exercised
discretion in condoning the delay.
25. He further submits that refusal to condone the delay would
result in grave and irreparable prejudice to the Respondent No.1,
whereas no serious prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner if the
matter is adjudicated on merits.
26. Lastly, it is lastly submitted that the impugned order is a
reasoned order reflecting due application of mind and that no case for
interference in writ jurisdiction is made out.
Reasons and Conclusion:
27. Having heard the learned Counsel and upon perusing the
record, the following issue arises for consideration:
Whether an erstwhile vendor, or his heirs and legal
representatives, can claim any right over a portion of the property
within the boundaries of the land sold (in this case, several decades
ago), merely because such portion has surfaced pursuant to an area
correction carried out by the Collector ?
28. The answer is clearly in the negative.
2
29. In Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan ; the
2 (2010)9 SCC 496
10/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
Supreme Court, while relying upon Rana Vanna Bhararhan
3
Thampurarn v. State of Kerala , held that the obligation to record
reasons being a mandatory attribute of quasi-judicial power, any
deviation therefrom renders the decision vulnerable to judicial
interference. The recording of reasons constitutes an integral facet of
natural justice and ensures transparency, fairness and
accountability in decision-making.
30. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the
impugned order in order to appreciate the conclusion arrived at.
“After going through the papers of Lower Court and arguments
for the Appellant and respondent no.3, it reveals that the delay
condonation deserves to be allowed for the reason given
below -
1. Appellant has filed an appeal challenging the order
passed by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban in case
No. eh@dk;kZ&2d@dye&135@,lvkj&377 , dated 02/03/2010 after a
delay of 13 years, 7 months and 21 days before this Tribunal.
2. Appellant has stated that she attained majority on
26/01/2003 and in year 2019 while going through the available
land records that several properties in villages Pahadi Goregaon,
Goregaon and Dinodoshi which were small pockets of land still
stood in name of appellant’s deceased father i.e. Sitaram Narayan
Desai. Since documents from City Survey Office Malad and the
Collector Mumbai Suburban were not available and then after
Covid-19 epidemic there is a delay in filing the appeal which was
not intentional, as stated by appellant. Appellant is not the party
3 (1979)4 SCC 782
11/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
in the impugned order and was not aware of the impugned order.
3. The principles of law in the matter of condonation of
delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1063 are well settled,
which requires explanation of delay as stated by respondent no.3
but after going through judgment of Hon. High Court in Ashok
alias Balaji Ratan Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust 2004(6) Bom.
In Cr 861, 2004(3) MHLJ 659, dated 08/04/2004 it has been
concluded that even if the delay is not condoned in a case event if
the applicant is entitled to benefit on merits, the denial of delay
prima facie amounts to deprivation of justice. On the other hand,
if the delay is condoned, all the parties will be heard and justice
will be given to all and also even if the rule requires explanation
for each day of delay, even if it is not explained in this way, the
decision is to be taken by keeping the merit of the case……”
31. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that it merely
records the conclusion without disclosing the reasoning process or
the basis for arriving at such findings. As per the dictum in Rana
Vanna , the failure to provide reasons is not just a procedural
irregularity but amounts to a breach of principles of natural justice.
4
32. In Union of India v Mohan Lal Capoor the Supreme Court held
that reasons constitute the rationale underlying the decision and
explain the nexus between the factual matrix and the conclusions
drawn, thereby ensuring the transparency, justness, fairness, and
reasonableness in the decision-making process.
33. In the present case, the Respondent No. 4 has failed to deal with
4 (1973)2 SCC 836
12/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
the specific contentions raised by the Petitioner. The order merely
records a conclusion without disclosing the process of reasoning.
Such an approach is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The
absence of reasons renders the order as arbitrary and unsustainable.
Consequently, such a non-speaking order cannot be sustained in law
and is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of natural
justice.
34. I find merit in the contention of Dr. Tulzapurkar that the
Respondent No. 4 has failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance
with law while adjudicating the delay application. Respondent No. 4
failed to appreciate that Respondent No. 1 had not disclose any
legally sustainable or cogent explanation justifying condonation of an
inordinate delay of nearly 13 years. In the absence of material
demonstrating bonafide conduct, due diligence, or continuous
prosecution of remedy, such extraordinary delay could not have been
condoned.
35. In this regard, the only justification sought by Mr. Sayed the
learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, is a vague
assertion that Respondent No. 1 was “occupied in management” of
the property. Such an assertion neither constitutes sufficient cause
nor demonstrates due diligence within the meaning of Section 5 of
13/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
the Limitation Act, 1963.
5
36. In Balwant Singh (dead) vs. Jagdish Singh the Supreme Court
held that while considering an application for condonation of delay,
the Court must balance the need advance "substantial justice" with
the statutory requirement of sufficient cause. In para 17 of the
judgement, the Court categorically held that the party seeking
condonation must establish vigilance and the absence of negligence,
which Respondent No. 1 has miserably failed to demonstrate.
37. The Court further emphasized that the expression “sufficient
cause” cannot be construed so liberally as to defeat the law of
limitation, which is substantive in nature and carries definite
consequences on accrued rights. In paragraph 26, the Court
reiterated that the explanation for delay must be reasonable,
plausible and supported by material particulars, and that courts
cannot condone delay merely on sympathetic considerations.
Further, in paragraphs 37 and 38, the Supreme Court held that
where delay is inordinate and remains unexplained, condonation
would amount to rendering the law of limitation otiose. A liberal
approach does not imply a licence to disregard statutory timelines,
particularly when valuable rights have accrued in favour of the
5 (2010)8 SCC 685
14/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
opposite party.
38. The delay of approximately 13 years is ex facie inordinate. No
material particulars have been placed on record by Respondent No. 1
to demonstrate continuous diligence or bonafide prosecution of the
remedy. There is no explanation accounting for the entire period of
delay, much less for each segment thereof. The impugned order does
not record any specific finding that the explanation furnished was
bonafide or that Respondent No. 1 was free from negligence or
inaction. The condonation of such delay directly prejudices vested
and crystallized rights of the Petitioner and third parties, which the
law of limitation seeks to protect. Accordingly, the condonation of
delay is contrary to binding precedent and constitutes an arbitrary
exercise of discretion.
39. I also find merit in the next contention of Dr. Tulzapurkar that
the Respondent No. 4 erroneously assumed jurisdiction to entertain
the appeal without first satisfying the foundational requirement of a
valid and maintainable application for condonation of delay. Unless
and until a proper application, strictly in compliance with the
requirements of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is duly
preferred and considered, the appellate authority cannot assume
jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the appeal on merits.
15/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
6
40. In Ballumal A. Jaisingh v. M/s J.J. Builders & Ors. , it has been
held that the absence of an application for condonation of delay
deprives the Court of jurisdiction to condone the delay, thereby
rendering the impugned order a nullity and liable to be set aside.
41. In Whirlpool Corporation (supra) the Supreme Court held that
the existence of alternate remedy does not operate as a bar where (i)
there is a violation of principles of natural justice, (ii) the impugned
order suffers from jurisdictional error, or (iii) the proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction. This position has been consistently
7
recognized, inter alia, in Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana ,
8
K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission , and
reaffirmed in Whirlpool Corporation .
42. While it is correct that the decision in Collector, Land
9
Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji supports a liberal approach in
considering the applications for condonation of delay, the said
judgement cannot be read in isolation or as laying down an
unqualified proposition that delay must invariably be condoned.
43. The Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (supra) reiterated that
the inordinate delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner,
6 2003 3 Mh.L.J. 238
7 AIR 1950 SC 163
8 AIR 1954 SC 207
9 (1987)2 SCC 107
16/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
particularly where valuable rights have accrued to the opposite
party. The law of limitation is substantive in nature and cannot be
rendered otiose under the guise of advancing substantial justice.
44. In my view, the Appeal was filed with an ulterior motive and a
speculative intent. The father of Respondent No.1 had, for valuable
consideration, sold all the lands delineated in red colour in the plan.
The encircled areas arise in the midst of various pieces and parcels
purchased in its entirety. The said area does not abut the lands now
claimed by the Appellant so as to confer or even suggest any right
therein. It is therefore evident that the present claim is raised with a
malafide intent, evidently to harass or extract money. In K.K. Modi v.
10
K.N. Modi , the Supreme Court held that proceedings instituted with
ulterior motives or to harass the opposite party constitute an abuse
of the process of the court.
45. It is observed that litigation has increasingly become a tool of
blackmail, extortion or a speculative venture akin to purchasing a
lottery ticket. The present case is yet another example illustrating
this disturbing trend. Such frivolous litigations must be curbed at the
threshold. In the absence of specific legislative measures, the
imposition of costs remains the most effective tool available to the
10 (1998) 3 SCC 573
17/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
Court to discourage such abuse of the judicial process.
11
46. In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the Supreme Court
cautioned that the courts must discourage litigants who approach the
court with frivolous or dishonest claims and must deal with such
litigation with stern measures.
47. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following Order is
passed:
::ORDER::
1. The Writ Petition is allowed.
2. The Order dated 8th April 2024 passed by the Ld. Additional
Commissioner is quashed and set aside.
3. The Respondent shall pay costs of 5,00,000/- to the Petitioner ₹
within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this
order on the website of the Bombay High Court.
th
4. List the matter for reporting compliance on 24 April 2026.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
11 (2010) 2 SCC 114
18/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
48. At this stage, Mr. R.A. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.1 request for stay. In view of the aforestated reasons, the request
for stay is rejected.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
Judgements Relied:
1. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai &
Ors.1998 SCC 1.
2. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9
SCC 496.
3. Rana Vanna Bhararhan Thampurarn v. State of Kerala (1979)
4 SCC 782.
4. Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836.
5. Balwant Singh (dead) vs. Jagdish Singh (2010) 8 SCC 685.
6. Ballumal A. Jaisingh v. M/s J.J. Builders & Ors 2003 3
Mh.L.J.238.
7. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana AIR 1950 SC 163.
8. K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission AIR
1954 SC 207.
9. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2
SCC 107.
10. K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1987) 2 SCC 107.
11. Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (1998) 3 SCC 573.
19/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
‘Plan X’
20/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::

OSWP-5398-2025.doc
Priyanka
‘Plan X-1’
21/21
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 17:13:08 :::