Condonation of inordinate unexplained delay violates natural justice and substantive law of limitation.

Nirlon Limited, the Petitioner, acquired several land parcels in Village Pahadi and Village Goregaon through a Sanad document/Agreement dated August 18, 1962, and a registered indenture dated September 22, 1964, from Sitaram Narayan Desai, the father of Respondent No.1.

The Petitioner acquired additional properties from Sitaram Narayan Desai via a registered indenture dated March 31, 1965.

Around forty-four years later, area correction proceedings were initiated by the Collector (Respondent No. 2) in October 2009.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 issued an Order dated March 2, 2010 ("Area Correction Order"), effecting necessary area corrections and mutation entries in the revenue records, reflecting the Petitioner's ownership.

This order resulted in a gap between the two villages, admeasuring approximately 1728.5 sq. meters.

The Petitioner claimed peaceful and uninterrupted possession of these lands for over four decades, undertaking substantial development and creating third-party rights.

In 2023, Respondent No. 1, Sitaram Narayan Desai's daughter, filed an Appeal challenging the Area Correction Order dated March 2, 2010, along with an application to condone a delay of 13 years, 07 months, and 21 days, claiming rights over the lands.

On April 8, 2024, the Additional Commissioner Konkan Division (Respondent No. 4) allowed Respondent No. 1's appeal and condoned the delay.

The Petitioner challenged this order through the present Writ Petition.

1. 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, merely because such portion has surfaced pursuant to an area correction carried out by the Collector?

2. Whether the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner Konkan Division, condoning a delay of over 13 years without providing adequate reasons, violates the principles of natural justice and is an arbitrary exercise of discretion?

3. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy, given the alleged violation of natural justice and jurisdictional error?

The court primarily applied the principle that the obligation to record reasons is a mandatory attribute of quasi-judicial power, and any deviation renders a decision vulnerable to judicial interference.

This principle was supported by citing *Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan* and *Rana Vanna Bhararhan Thampurarn v. State of Kerala*.

It also relied on *Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor* for the proposition that reasons constitute the rationale for a decision, ensuring transparency and fairness.

For condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the court, referencing *Balwant Singh (dead) vs. Jagdish Singh*, held that "sufficient cause" requires vigilance and absence of negligence, not to be construed so liberally as to defeat the law of limitation, especially when valuable rights have accrued.

The court also cited *Katiji* which supports a liberal approach for condonation of delay, but confirmed that *Balwant Singh* reiterated that this does not mean that every case involving delay must be allowed.

The court recognized that a writ under Article 226 is maintainable even with an alternate remedy if there is a violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error, as established in *Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Others*.

Finally, the court relied on *Ballumal A. Jaisingh v. M/s J.J. Builders & Ors.* which held that the absence of a proper application for condonation of delay deprives the court of jurisdiction.

The court found that the impugned order, which condoned a delay of over 13 years, failed to disclose the reasoning process or the basis for its findings, merely recording a conclusion.

This, according to the court, constituted a breach of natural justice, citing *Rana Vanna* and *Union of India v Mohan Lal Capoor*.

The court determined that Respondent No. 4 erroneously assumed jurisdiction without appreciating the absence of a legally sustainable or cogent explanation for the inordinate delay.

The Respondent No. 1's "vague assertion" of being "occupied in management" was deemed insufficient under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it failed to demonstrate continuous diligence or bona fide prosecution of the remedy, consistent with the principles laid down in *Balwant Singh (dead) vs. Jagdish Singh*.

The court emphasized that condoning such an unexplained, inordinate delay would prejudice the Petitioner's vested and crystallized rights, making the law of limitation otiose.

The court applied *Whirlpool Corporation* to justify the maintainability of the writ petition, given the violation of natural justice and jurisdictional error in condoning the delay without proper reasons or a valid application, thus treating the order as a nullity in line with *Ballumal A. Jaisingh*.

Furthermore, the court inferred an ulterior and mala fide motive behind Respondent No. 1's appeal, viewing it as an abuse of the court process due to the historically clear title of the Petitioner which was sold by Respondent No.1's father.

The court held that an erstwhile vendor, or their heirs, cannot claim rights over lands merely surfaced during an area correction if the land was previously sold, answering Issue No. 1 in the negative.

The court found that the impugned order, lacking reasons for condoning an inordinate delay, violated the principles of natural justice and constituted an arbitrary exercise of discretion, thus answering Issue No. 2 in the affirmative.

The court also implicitly held the writ petition maintainable due to the jurisdictional error and violation of natural justice.

The Respondent was directed to pay costs of ₹5,00,000/- to the Petitioner within four weeks from the order's uploading date, and the request for a stay by Respondent No. 1 was rejected.