JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated 10-2-2020 and 30-6-2020, passed by the respondent No. 2-Superintendent of Land Records, Wardha. The principal challenge raised to the basic order dated 10-2-2020, on behalf of the petitioner, is that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice and that on this short ground the said order deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that if the said order is set aside, the subsequent order dated 30-6-2020, would be rendered redundant and it would stand set aside on that basis itself. It is contended that the impugned order dated 10-2-2020, is clearly adverse to the interest of the petitioner and in the absence of any notice being issued to the petitioner, the said order stands vitiated. Apart from this, it is submitted that the order could not have been passed while purportedly exercising appellate power under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 3. The brief facts leading up to filing of the present Writ Petition are that according to the petitioner, it is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the development of infrastructure, construction and land development. It was in the process of purchasing 14 acres of land belonging to respondent No. 5-Trust of which the respondent No. 6 claims to be the Secretary. It is submitted that on 30-10-2015, the land in question was purchased by the petitioner-Company for a valuable consideration of about Rs. 28 Crores from the respondent No. 5-Trust. It is the case of the petitioner-Company that during the process of purchase of the said land, respondent No. 5-Trust and respondent No. 6-Trustee of the said Trust had co-operated with the petitioner-Company and no objection in respect of the same was ever raised. It is submitted that, subsequently when obstruction was sought to be created by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in enjoyment of the said property by the petitioner-Company, it was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction. 4. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner-Company that in the meanwhile, without the knowledge of the petitioner-Company, the respondent No. 6 approached respondent No. 2 by preferring an application dated 6-11-2019, raising an objection to issuance of “Ka prat” in respect of the said land. 4. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner-Company that in the meanwhile, without the knowledge of the petitioner-Company, the respondent No. 6 approached respondent No. 2 by preferring an application dated 6-11-2019, raising an objection to issuance of “Ka prat” in respect of the said land. According to respondent No. 6, the said “Ka prat” was issued on 11-9-2015, in violation of all procedure and that it was the result of fraudulent activity, including forged signatures of respondent No. 6 being appended to certain documents. It was alleged that such “Ka prat” could not have been issued, even before conversion of the land in question for non-agricultural use and there were specific statements/allegations made against the petitioner-Company in that regard. 5. In the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner-Company, an application for temporary injunction (Exh.5) was moved, which was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Company filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which is pending. It is in the said appellate proceedings that for the first time, the respondent No. 6 relied upon the impugned order dated 10-2-2020, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the exercise of measurement leading to issuance of “Ka prat” itself was set aside as being procedurally incorrect. It was when the said order was produced before the Appellate Court that the petitioner-Company for the first time became aware of such a proceeding initiated by respondent No. 6 before respondent No. 2. Initially, the petitioner-Company filed an application under section 256 of the aforesaid Code, seeking stay of the said order in order to file an appeal. The said application was allowed by an order dated 24-2-2020, directing that the order dated 10-2-2020, would remain stayed during the appeal period. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 30-6-2020, the said stay order was withdrawn. 6. The petitioner-Company filed the present Writ Petition on 21-7-2020, challenging the aforesaid impugned orders dated 10-2-2020 and 30-6-2020. It was, inter alia, contended that the said orders were completely without jurisdiction and that, therefore, the Writ Petition was maintainable. It was submitted that there was flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and for this reason also the present Writ Petition deserved to be entertained by this Court. 7. On 23-7-2020, notice was issued and interim relief was granted till the next date of hearing. Subsequently, the interim order was continued in the present proceedings. 8. Mr. It was submitted that there was flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and for this reason also the present Writ Petition deserved to be entertained by this Court. 7. On 23-7-2020, notice was issued and interim relief was granted till the next date of hearing. Subsequently, the interim order was continued in the present proceedings. 8. Mr. Devendra Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company submitted in support of the Writ Petition that the Petition was maintainable for the afore-mentioned reasons and further that the impugned order dated 10-2-2020, deserved to be set aside for the reason that although the order had an adverse impact on the interest of the petitioner-Company, admittedly, the petitioner-Company was not made party and no notice was ever issued by respondent No. 2. It was submitted that the aforesaid order itself specifically stated that it was being passed under section 247 of the said Code, thereby indicating that the application filed by respondent No. 6 was treated as an appeal by the respondent No. 2. It was submitted that if it was treated as an appeal, the same was clearly barred by limitation because the provisions of the said Code specifically laid down that an appeal could have been filed only within a period of 60 days. It was submitted that in the present case, admittedly, “Ka prat” was issued on 11-9-2015 and the order of measurement, which was set aside was dated 1-2-2015, while the application filed by respondent No. 6, treated as an appeal by respondent No. 2, was admittedly filed on 6-11-2019. 9. Apart from this, it was submitted that the respondent No. 2 ought to have asked the respondent No. 6 to join the petitioner-Company as party, if at all the application dated 6-11-2019, was to be entertained as an appeal. This could have given an opportunity to the petitioner-Company, not only to contest the same on merits, but, the petitioner-Company could have raised the objection of delay before respondent No. 2. It was submitted that since the impugned order dated 10-2-2020, suffered from such gross violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, it was procedurally unfair, the said order deserved to be set aside. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, (2015) 8 SCC 519 . Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, (2015) 8 SCC 519 . It was submitted that if the order dated 10-2-2020, was set aside by this Court, the impugned order dated 30-6-2020, would be rendered meaningless and, therefore, the same also deserved to be set aside. 10. Ms. T.H. Khan, learned AGP appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4 and submitted that the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice raised on behalf of the petitioner-Company was misplaced, because when the “Ka prat” was issued on 11-9-2015, the petitioner-Company had no right in the property in question. It was further submitted that even if it was to be held that the appellate power under section 247 of the Code could not have been exercised by respondent No. 2, section 258 of the Code provided jurisdiction and power to the respondent No. 2 to review its own order. It is relevant that in this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company referred to section 258 of the Code and indicated that even if the said power was to be exercised, the proviso to the said provision expressly enjoined the concerned authority to issue notice to the interested parties. On this basis, it was submitted that the said contention raised on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, was untenable. Be that as it may, the learned AGP reiterated that in the facts of the present case, the petitioner-Company could not be said to be an interested party, since it had no right in the land in question when “Ka prat” was issued on 11-9-2015. On this basis, it was submitted that the Writ Petition deserved to be dismissed. 11. Mr. P.S. Kadam, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6 submitted that there was no question of putting the petitioner-Company on notice before passing the impugned order dated 10-2-2020, because the land in question was yet to be converted for non-agricultural use and also because the petitioner-Company had no right in the land in question on the date on which “Ka prat” was issued. Apart from this, it was submitted that there was alternative remedy available to the petitioner-Company in the form of an appeal under section 247 of the Code to the Director of Land Record. Attention of this Court was invited to certain documents on record and it was claimed that even on the application on the basis of which exercise of measurement was carried out, leading to issuance of “Ka prat”, signatures of the respondent No. 6 were forged and that in view of the said fraudulent exercise by the concerned Officer, the respondent No. 2 was justified in passing the impugned order dated 10-2-2020. 12. Heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the material on record. The documents on record do indicate that undisputedly the petitioner-Company purchased the land in question admeasuring about 14 acres for a valuable consideration of Rs. 28 Crores and 21 Lakhs from the respondent No. 5-Trust on 30-10-2015. The material on record also indicates that till 6-11-2019, the respondent No. 6 as Secretary of respondent No. 5-Trust had not raised any objection to the steps taken by the parties leading up to the execution of the sale deed dated 30-10-2015. It is relevant that neither respondent No. 5-Trust nor respondent No. 6 - the Secretary of the said Trust, raised any objection to the issuance of “Ka prat” and the procedural formalities required to be followed while issuing such “Ka prat”, till 6-11-2019, when for the first time, the respondent No. 6 approached the respondent No. 2 raising serious objection to issuance of “Ka prat” on 11-9-2015. The dispute between the parties seems to have arisen after the petitioner-Company was allegedly restrained from enjoying the property in question. This led to filing of the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction by the petitioner-Company against the respondent No. 5-Trust and respondent No. 6 as Secretary of the said Trust. This was sometime in July, 2019. The parties are contesting the matter at the stage of the question of grant or refusal of temporary injunction, which is pending in the form of an appeal filed by the petitioner-Company before the Appellate Court. There is also no dispute about the fact that the existence of the impugned order dated 10-2-2020, was brought on record for the first time in the appellate proceedings by respondents No. 5 and 6. 13. There is also no dispute about the fact that the existence of the impugned order dated 10-2-2020, was brought on record for the first time in the appellate proceedings by respondents No. 5 and 6. 13. The principal challenge raised to the impugned orders on behalf of the petitioner-Company is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, the copy of the application dated 6-11-2019, filed by respondent No. 6 before respondent No. 2 and the consequent impugned order dated 10-2-2020 need to be perused. A perusal of the same would show that the respondent No. 6 has made serious allegations of fraud and alleged forged signatures in documents leading up to the measurement and issuance of “Ka prat” on 11-9-2015. In the application dated 6-11-2019, statements have been made attributing certain wrong doings to the petitioner-Company, apart from the levelling allegations against the concerned officials. The impugned order dated 10-2-2020 has accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent No. 6, as a consequence of which the application has been allowed and order dated 1-2-2015, leading to measurement and ultimately leading to issuance of “Ka prat” on 11-9-2015 has been set aside. The aforesaid “Ka prat” is the result of exercise of measurement of the land in question and it records the ownership of the land at the relevant time in terms of the measurement carried out. This document is clearly a document in which the petitioner-Company has vital interest, considering the fact that it is to undertake development and construction thereon. A perusal of the impugned order dated 10-2-2020, also shows that respondent No. 2 has specifically treated the proceedings before it as appellate proceeding and the impugned order is passed by exercising power under section 247 of the aforesaid Code. 14. There is no dispute about the fact that as per section 250 of the Code, it is specified that an appeal is to be filed before expiry of 60 days from the decision or the order complained of. In the present case, while the decision/order complained of was admittedly issued in February 2015 and the “Ka prat” was issued on 11-9-2015, respondent No. 6 filed the application/appeal before respondent No. 2 on 6-11-2019. This was much after the expiry of the limitation period of 60 days. In the present case, while the decision/order complained of was admittedly issued in February 2015 and the “Ka prat” was issued on 11-9-2015, respondent No. 6 filed the application/appeal before respondent No. 2 on 6-11-2019. This was much after the expiry of the limitation period of 60 days. There is no dispute about the fact that the application/appeal was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. 15. Therefore, it becomes clear that the respondent No. 2 could not have entertained such an application/appeal in the absence of an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reason as to why such application/appeal was filed after expiry of 60 days specified in section 250 of the aforesaid Code. Apart from this, a perusal of the impugned order shows that it was adverse to the interest of the petitioner-Company and that certain allegations made in the application/appeal against the petitioner-Company were accepted by the respondent No. 2, while setting aside order dated 1-2-2015, pursuant to which measurement was carried out and “Ka prat” was issued on 11-9-2015. This clearly shows that the respondent No. 2 committed a grave error in proceeding to pass the impugned order without considering it fit to put the petitioner-Company on notice. If such an exercise would have been carried out, the petitioner-Company would have had an opportunity to dispute allegations made against it and also to raise the objection regarding limitation, apart from objections on the merits of the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Company is justified in relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized upon the necessity to comply with the principles of natural justice. It has been held that failure to comply with the said requirements would show that there was a case of procedural unfairness, which vitiated the order passed against a party, who was not put to notice before such an adverse order was passed. The facts of the present case clearly indicate that there was flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and that on this short ground itself the impugned order dated 10-2-2020, deserves to be set aside. 16. The facts of the present case clearly indicate that there was flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and that on this short ground itself the impugned order dated 10-2-2020, deserves to be set aside. 16. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4 that even otherwise the respondent No. 2 could have exercised power of review under section 258 of the Code, also suffers from the same deficiency. The said provision specifically in proviso (ii) to section 258(1) specifies that no order can be varied or reversed unless notice was given to the party interested in the matter. 17. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner-Company was clearly an interested party in the present case and that, therefore, recourse to section 258 of the Code would also be of no avail to the respondent No. 2. But, the contentions raised on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6, in which much emphasis has been placed on alleged fraud, forgery and adverse allegations against the petitioner-Company, would show that when such emphasis is being placed on allegations against the petitioner-Company, it becomes more the reason that the petitioner-Company ought to have been put to notice before respondent No. 2 entertained the application filed by respondent No. 6. 18. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are wholly unsustainable. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 20. At this stage, a statement is made on behalf of the respondents No.5 and 6 that they would take recourse to remedies that may be available to them in law. This Court expresses no opinion on the aforesaid statement made on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6. 21. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. Petition allowed.