Writ Petition No. 7090 of 2014 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:6317 -1- W.P.No.7090.2014IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 7090 OF 20141.Anna s/o Sadu Joshi,Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri., R/o. Nipani Chincholi, Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna2.Appa s/o Kaduba Joshi,Age : 35 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o. Nipani Chincholi, Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna3.Sou. Kamlabai w/o Eaknath Joshi,Age : 45 years, Occu : Household,R/o. Nipani Chincholi, Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna4.Kaduba s/o Rakhmaji Joshi (Died)Through L. Rs.The Other L.Rs. i.e. Petitioner No. 2, 6 and 7are also L. Rs. Of the deceased and as already appeared in the proceedings the only remainingL.Rs. Is brought herewith4A.Ramdas s/o Kaduba Joshi (Died)Through L.Rs.4-Aa.Shantabai Ramdas JoshiAge : 38 years, Occu : Household,4-Ab.Dnyaneshwar s/o Ramdas JoshiAge : 20 years, Occu : Agri,4-Ac.Yogita d/o Ramdas JoshiAge : 16 years, Occu : Education,4-Ad.Raju s/o Ramdas JoshiAge : 13 years, Occu : Education,All R/o. Nipani Chincholi, Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna -2- W.P.No.7090.20145.Nana s/o Sadu JoshiAge : 35 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. Nipani Chincholi, Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna6.Laxman s/o Kaduba JoshiAge : 33 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. Nipani Chincholi, Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna7.Shevantabai Kaduba JoshiAge : 55 years, Occu : Household,R/o. Nipani Chincholi, Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna8.Jagan s/o Kaduba JoshiSince deceased through L.Rs.8-a.Janabai w.o Jagan JoshiAge : 55 years, Occu : Household,8-b.Santosh s/o Jagan JoshiAge : 40 years, Occu : Agri,8-c.Laxmbai Jagan JoshiAge : 35 years, Occu : Household,8-d.Bala s/o Jagan JoshiAge : 35 years, Occu : Household,8-e.Sarla Jagan JoshiAge : 32 years, Occu : Household,All R/o. Nipani Chincholi, Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna …. PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Secretary Land Revenue DepartmentMantralaya Mumbai2.The Dy. Director of Land Record,Aurangabad, Region Aurangabad
Legal Reasoning
-15- W.P.No.7090.2014therefore, it is necessary to issue corrigendum under Section 31-A ofthe Act of 1947. Hence, he has issued directions under Section 31-Afor carrying out corrections by his order dated 08.02.2013. 29.It is further contended by respondent No. 4 that inpursuance of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Record,the notices were issued to the petitioner and after issuing the notices,the order has been passed by issuing a corrigendum and entries tothat effect have already been taken on 08.02.2013 by carrying outnecessary corrections. Hence, the order passed has been implementedby the Deputy Director of Land Record, Aurangabad. 30.As far as the objection regarding the powers to beexercised by the Settlement Commissioner with regard to the Section31(1) of the Act of 1947 is concerned, learned Advocate relies on theorder dated 17.12.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2967 of 2017 (Vitthal Nana Kokane Vs. The State of Maharashtra)wherein in para 11, this Court has referred to the circular dated05.02.2000. Pursuant to the circular, the powers of SettlementCommissioner under Section 31-A are delegated to the DeputyDirector of Land Record who in turn has further delegated it to theDistrict Superintendent of Land Record. There is a further referenceto the circular dated 31.08.2001 issued under Section 34 of the Act, -16- W.P.No.7090.2014whereby the powers of Settlement Commissioner after delegationwere to be exercised by Deputy Director of Land Record.31.Hence, in view of the circular issued by the Government,whereby the powers of Settlement Commissioner are delegated toDeputy Director of Land Record and District Superintendent of LandRecord, the objection of the petitioners has no substance. It is furthercontended by the Advocate for respondent No. 4 that though in thetitle of the order there is a reference to Section 247 of MaharashtraLand Revenue Code, however, the relief claimed as well as theAuthority concerned, who had passed the orders are both under thespecial enactment i.e. Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation andConsolidation of Holdings Rules, 1959. Mere reference in the titledoes not change the forum to which the respondent No. 4 hasapproached which is provided under the special enactment itself. Therelief claimed and the authorities to whom respondent No. 4 hasapproached is undoubtedly under the Bombay Prevention ofFragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1959. Therefore,the objection raised by the petitioners does not deserve consideration.32.Learned Advocate for respondent No. 4 further relied onorder dated 12.10.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8737 of 2021 (Tulshiram Shivram Dhondkar and Ors. Vs. The State of -17- W.P.No.7090.2014Maharashtra and Ors.) wherein this Court has further referred to theorder dated 23.03.2001 passed in Gulab Bhaurao Kakade Vs. NivruttiKrishna Bhilar and others reported in 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 31 wherein theconsolidation scheme which was finalized in the year 1973, wasvaried by Settlement Commissioner in the year 1988, since theprocedure prescribed under the Act of 1947, was not followed. Inspiteof delay of 15 years, the order which was assailed in the writ petitionhas been set aside. 33.Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 further relieson the judgment of Limbraj Waman Yede Vs. State of Maharashtraand Ors. 2004(4) Bom. C.R. 945, this Court has relied on thejudgment of Gulabrao Kakade Vs. Nivrutti Bhilare (supra). Relying onthe said judgment, this Court has held that though the SettlementCommissioner has powers of correction as well as for making suitablevariations in the scheme after following due procedure of law, theaggrieved party did not move the Settlement Commissioner forcorrection of clerical mistake in the consolidation scheme. Instead ofapproaching the Settlement Commissioner, the aggrieved party hasmoved the respondent No. 2 who was not the Competent Authoritiesto carry out such corrections in the record and vary the scheme. Theaction was held to be illegal and arbitrary and therefore, the order hasbeen set aside. Therefore, this judgment which is cited by respondent -18- W.P.No.7090.2014No. 4 is of no assistant to him.34.I have heard respective parties, the issues which areraised by the petitioners are limited to the extent of delay inapproaching Authority for making necessary corrections andinvocation of provisions under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,when the appropriate remedy available is provided under the BombayPrevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Rules,1959. 35.In the background of the facts of the case, the petitionershave raised two objections – (1) The orders passed by the DSLR andDy. Director of Land Records are without jurisdiction since the reliefwhich was claimed is under the provisions of the Act of 1947 and theorders are passed by the Authorities under the Maharashtra LandRevenue Code. (2) The orders passed by the DSLR and Dy. Director ofLand Records by condoning the delay of 37 years, are neitherpermissible nor maintainable in view of various judicialpronouncements of this Court. 36.So far as the objections raised by the petitioners to theimpugned orders are concerned, the issue of delay is required to beconsidered at the threshold. If this Court comes to the conclusion thatthe order condoning the delay in filing the appeal is appropriate and -19- W.P.No.7090.2014valid. The maintainability of proceedings under the Maharashtra LandRevenue Code will need consideration. So far as the issue of delay infiling the proceedings is concerned, it is not in dispute that theapplication is filed by the respondent No. 4 to the SettlementCommissioner on 03.05.2007. In the application, the respondent No.4 has categorically stated that the settlement scheme was finalized on22.02.1970. Therefore, there is delay of 37 years in filing theapplication before the Settlement Commissioner. 37.The application for condonation of delay in theproceedings before the DSLR, Jalgaon was filed by the respondentNo.4 on 06.11.2009 and the application was decided on 28.06.2010.Though the petitioner herein has not challenged the order passed onapplication for condonation of delay, he has challenged the orderpassed by the Dy. SLR, Aurangabad before the Deputy Director ofLand Records wherein he has specifically raised objection regardingthe delay of 33 years occurred in filing the appeal as well as the orderdated 28.07.2010 condoning the delay in filing the appeal, withoutany satisfactory explanation. 38.The application seeking correction in scheme was filed on03.05.2007. The consolidation scheme was finalized in the village on22.02.1970. Therefore, after a long slumber of 37 years, the -20- W.P.No.7090.2014application was filed to the Settlement Commissioner on 03.05.2007,seeking correction in land Gat No. 183, 184 and 185. Though theappeal was allowed by the DSLR by order dated 23.05.2011,however, the order was modified, by the Dy. Director of Land Recordsvide order dated 08.02.2013, giving directions to carry out correctionsas per Section 31-A of the Act of 1947. Though the application forcondonation of delay is allowed by the Dy. SLR vide order dated28.06.2010, the same is contrary to the judicial pronouncement ofthis Hon’ble Court in Jalindar Sadashiv Hirde and Others Vs. TheState of Maharashtra and Others 2018 DGLS (Bom.) 59 wherein thisCourt has framed an issue in paragraph No. 6 which reads thus : “6. In so far as the second issue pertaining to limitation isconcerned, it requires no debate that Section 31-A does notprescribe any limitation. However, the learned DivisionBench of this Court in the matter of Gulabrao BhauraoKakade Vs. Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare and others [2001(Supp.1) Bom.C.R. 688 : 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 31], has concluded thatafter taking into account the various provisions of the 1947Act, a prayer for correction in the scheme only to be doneby the Settlement Commissioner, can be permitted within areasonable period. While dealing with the facts in theGulabrao’s case (supra), it was concluded that when theconsolidation scheme was finalized in 1973, ordinarily,exercising the power under Section 31-A, after three years,may not be permissible and justified under Section 32. Itwas, therefore, held, on the facts, that the SettlementScheme of 1973 cannot be disturbed in 1988,notwithstanding whether it suffers any clerical orarithmetical errors. -21- W.P.No.7090.201439.In view of the law laid down by this Court, it settledposition of law that though no limitation is provided either underSection 32 for variation of scheme or under Section 31-A of the Act of1947. The application / complaint is required to be made within areasonable period, and that reasonable period is held to be threeyears.40.The view taken by this Court in Gulabrao BaburaoKakade (cited supra), has been followed by another Division Benchjudgment of this Court in Suresh Bapu Sankanna and Ors. Vs. TheState of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2018(7) ALL MR 302. It isheld that even if no specific period prescribed in Section 32 of thesaid Act, as regards limitation, an application for modification orcorrection of finalized consolidation scheme can be made only within3 years of such finalization of the scheme. 41.It is observed that, limitation is a matter of public policy,which lays down that stale claims cannot be agitated, an aggrievedperson has to raise his grievance within a particular time limit. TheHon’ble Court has relied on the observations made by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by LR’s Vs.Executive Engineer, Jalgam Medium Project and Anr. (2008)17 SCC -22- W.P.No.7090.2014448, wherein the basic reason for laying down period and limitationhave been summarized, which have been reproduced in para 19 ofthe judgment which reads thus :“19. In Rama and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR (1962)F SC 361, this court held that: "in construing Section 5 ofthe - Limitation Act; it is relevant to bear in mind twoimportant considerations. The first consideration is thatthe expiration of period of limitation prescribed for makingan appeal gives rise to right in favour of the decree holderto treat the decree as binding between the parties and thislegal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapseof time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The otherconsideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficientcause of excusing delay is shown discretion is given to thecourt to condone the delay and admit the appeal. 'It isfurther necessary to emphasis that even if the sufficientcause has been shown a party is not entitled to thecondonation of delay in question as a matter of right. Theproof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for theexercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the courtby section This aspect of the matter naturally introducesthe consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stagethe diligence of the party of its bona fides may fall forconsideration." On the facts and in the circumstances, weare of the opinion that the respondent beneficiary was notdiligent in availing the remedy of appeal. The avermentsmade in the application seeking condonation of delay infiling appeals do not show any acceptable cause much lesssufficient cause to exercise courts' discretion in its favour.”42.Thus, it is clear that, the aggrieved persons have to raisehis grievance within a reasonable period even if there is no period oflimitation prescribed in the Act. -23- W.P.No.7090.201443.The application filed by respondent No. 4, on03.05.2007, after the finalization of scheme on 22.02.1970, suffersfrom inordinate delay and latches. Since the application filed by therespondent No. 4 was barred by limitation, the entire exercise of theState Authorities was without jurisdiction. Hence, the orders passedby the State Authorities without jurisdiction cannot be sustained.Once it is held that the order passed by the State Authorities arewithout jurisdiction, the other issue about availing the wrong remedywould not survive. Therefore, on that ground alone, the writ petitiondeserves to be allowed and the order (Exh. G) dated 28.07.2010,condoning the delay in filing the appeal for correction in the scheme,the order (Exh. H) dated 23.05.2011 passed by DSLR allowing theappeal No. dzekad@,d=h@vihy@,l-vkj-817@12, order (Exh. I) dated08.02.2013 passed by the Dy. Director of Land Records, directingcorrection in record under Section 31(A) of the Act of 1947 and theconsequential correction made in the record, are quashed and setaside. 44.Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in terms of prayerClause ‘C’. Rule made absolute in above terms. [MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.] Omkar Joshi -24- W.P.No.7090.201445.After pronouncement of the judgment, learned Advocatefor the respondent makes a request that the implementation of thejudgment and order may kindly be stayed. Hence, considering therequest made by the learned Advocate for respondent, the operationand implementation of the order shall be stayed for a period of fourweeks from today. [MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.] Omkar Joshi
Arguments
-3- W.P.No.7090.20143.The District Superintendent of Land Record,Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna4.Ramdas s/o Dagdu MisalAge : 50 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. Nipani Chincholi, Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna…. Respondents…..Advocate for Petitioners:Mr. Arvind Tiwari with Adv. Mr. Shrimant MundheAdvocate for Respondent No. 4:Mr. D. A. ManeAGP for Respondent-State:Ms. A. S. Mantri CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. RESERVED ON:12 FEBRUARY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON :05 MARCH, 2025 ......JUDGMENT : 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally withthe consent of parties. 2.The petitioners are challenging the order dated28.07.2010 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Record,Jalna (hereinafter “DSLR” for short) whereby the delay in filing theAppeal before the District Superintendent of Land Records, Jalna hasbeen condoned as well as the order dated 23.05.2011 wherein theDSLR has passed an order allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.4 herein by directing the Deputy Director of Land Record, Bhokardan, -4- W.P.No.7090.2014Dist. Jalna to prepare a scheme for correction under Section 32(1) ofThe Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation ofHoldings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1947”) andsubmit it for sanction as per Section 32 of the Act of 1947. 3.Even the order dated 08.02.2013 passed by DeputyDirector of Land Record, Aurangabad directing to carry out necessarycorrections as provided under Section 31A of the Act of 1947, inrespect of land at village Nipani Chincholi, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalnain Gat No. 184 and 185 and the notice issued pursuant thereto on08.07.2014 has been challenged in the present writ petition. 4.It is the contention of the petitioners that the they areholding land in Sy. No. 74/1, 74/2 and 75 at village Nipani Chincholiwhich was converted into Gat No. 183, 184 and 185. Initially, area ofSy. No. 74 was 29A-32G; Sy. No. 74/1 was 1A-20R; Sy. No. 74/2 was28A-12R; and Sy. 75 was 25A-35R. The above lands were owned andpossessed by one Ashruba Ragho Maratha. In the year 1955, theforefather of petitioners entered into an agreement to sale of the landand accordingly, registered sale-deed was executed between AshrubaRagho Maratha and Maroti Rakhmaji Dhangar who is the forefatherof petitioner. By executing sale-deed, the lands in Sy. No. 74/1 to thextent of 1A-20R; Sy. No. 75 to the extent of 25A-15R; and land in -5- W.P.No.7090.2014Sy. No. 74/2 to the extent of 14A-6G was purchased by the forefatherof the petitioners. 5.Pursuant to the execution of sale-deeds, the forefathers ofthe petitioners became owners of land to the extent of 41A-1G, theyare cultivating the land since the year 1958. In the year 1970, theconsolidation scheme was implemented in the village. So far as thepetitioners are concerned, there was no change in their holding dueto the consolidation scheme and the scheme was finalized on22.02.1970. 6.It is contended by the petitioners that on 03.05.2007,respondent No. 4 has filed an application with the Jama Bandi Ayukt,Pune, seeking corrections in the land in Gat No. 183, 184 and 185 i.e.old Sy. No. 74/1, 74/2 and 75. Pursuant to the application, themeasurement of the land was conducted by the Authorities on08.08.2008. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 has filed Appeal on04.08.2009 before the respondent No. 3 for correction in the area ofland in Sy. No. 74 and 75. After filing an appeal, the respondent No. 4has filed an application on 06.11.2009 for condonation of delay infiling the appeal wherein there is no satisfactory explanation for thedelay. 7.It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent -6- W.P.No.7090.2014No. 3 did not possess powers to condone the delay. In spite of that, hehas condoned the delay by order dated 28.07.2010. It is thecontention of the petitioners that the proceedings for correction inconsolidation scheme are governed by Section 31A and 32 of the Actof 1947. According to him, both the powers are required to beexercised by the Settlement Commissioner. However, in the presentcase, the powers are exercised by respondent No. 3 who is not thecompetent to exercise the powers, therefore, the order passed byrespondent No. 3 suffers from jurisdictional error. 8.It is further contention of the petitioners that whileexercising the powers, respondent No. 3 has exercised powers underSection 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and allowed theappeal filed by respondent No. 4 by order dated 23.05.2011. Whileallowing the appeal, respondent No. 3 has passed an order directingto file a proposal for correction in the consolidation scheme underSection 32(1) of the Act of 1947.9.Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners as well asrespondent No. 4 have filed separate Appeals before respondent No. 2i.e. Deputy Director of Land Record, Aurangabad. The respondent No.4 has withdrawn his appeal on 08.02.2013 while the appeal filed bythe present petitioners was allowed by order dated 08.02.2013 and -7- W.P.No.7090.2014the order passed by the DSLR directing to prepare the proposal underSection 32(1) for correction of scheme was quashed and set aside. Inthe same order, the respondent No. 2 has directed to carry outcorrection as per Section 31A of the Act of 1947 in respect of land GatNo. 184 and 185 situated at village Nipani Chincholi within theperiod of one month.10.It is the contention of the petitioners that though theirappeal has been allowed, the respondent No. 2 has exceeded hisjurisdiction in passing the order directing to carry out correction asper Section 31(A) of the Act of 1947. It is further contended that theDy.SLR, Bhokardan, has issued notice on 13.06.2013, about theproposed correction, whereby the respondent No. 4 was likely to get14A-25R land with one Purnabai Bhimrao Milo from Gat No. 184. 11.The petitioners have raised objection, claiming that asper the sale-deed, the holdings of their land should be maintained.However, Dy.SLR, Bhokardan issued notice and submitted theproposed correction in the scheme on 02.06.2014. Thereafter, therespondents have prepared a corrigendum under Section 31A of theAct of 1947. It is the contention of the petitioners that, they are inpossession of the suit land since 1955 by virtue of the agreement tosale and thereafter, since 1958 on the basis of registered sale-deed. -8- W.P.No.7090.2014The petitioners state that considering that their valuable rights are atstake, they have challenged the order passed in the consolidationscheme before this Court. 12.It is further contended that respondent No. 4 has alsofiled Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2012 before the Civil Judge JuniorDivision, Bhokardan regarding land in Sy. No. 74 i.e. Gat No. 184claiming ownership of 16H-26R land. The learned Advocate forpetitioner, during the course of argument, has placed on record thecopy of the decision rendered in R.C.S. No. 120 of 2012, wherein thesuit filed by respondent No. 4 has been dismissed. According to him,respondent No. 4 has failed to make out a case hence, his suit hasbeen dismissed by the Trial Court on 04.07.2017.13.It is the contention of the petitioners that consolidationscheme of village Nipani Chincholi was finalied on 22.02.1970, whilethe respondent No. 4 has filed an application seeking correction of thescheme in the year 2007. Therefore, such a belated application after37 years should not have been entertained. The Authority ought tohave rejected his application for condonation of delay at the thresholditself for the huge delay occurred in approaching the authorities. It ishis contention that though there is no limitation provided in the Actfor variation of the scheme. In the catena of decisions of this Court, it -9- W.P.No.7090.2014is held that the person claiming correction in the scheme shouldapproach the authorities within a reasonable period, even thoughthere is no limitation for variation of scheme in the Act of 1947, but itexpected to be done within a reasonable period and such reasonableperiod is held to be three years from the finalization of scheme.14.The learned Advocate for the petitioners has specificallyraised two grounds while assailing the orders of the Authorities. Hisfirst objection is that – (1) The application / appeal has been filed bythe respondent No. 4 by invoking provisions of the Maharashtra LandRevenue Code when the remedy is under the Bombay Prevention ofFragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1959 (hereinafter“Rules of 1959”). 15.Learned Advocate has drawn my attention to the Appealfiled by respondent No. 4 before the DSLR wherein in the title of theappeal, it is stated that the appeal is filed under Section 247 of theMaharashtra Revenue Code. Hence, according to him, the reliefclaimed by the petitioners is under the Act of 1947.16.On above background, learned Advocate is placingreliance on the order dated 07.01.2019 of this Court passed in WritPetition No. 11146 of 2014 (Mukesh Anandrao Bhosale & Ors. Vs.District Superintendent of Land Records) wherein this Court has -10- W.P.No.7090.2014taken a view that the power to examine the legality and propriety oforders passed by any officer under Maharashtra Prevention of theFragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, is vested withSettlement Commissioner. Instead of filing an appeal under theprovisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation andConsolidation of Holdings Act, the respondent had filed an appealunder Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Act which wasentertained by the District Superintendent of Land Records aftercondoning the delay of 45 years. The order passed by DSLR has beenquashed and set aside on the ground of jurisdictional error. (2) The other objection raised by the petitioners isregarding the delay that has occurred in filing the complaint byrespondent No. 4. 17.It is the contention of the petitioners that though it isadmitted fact that there is no limitation prescribed under the Act of1947 for variation of scheme or for making corrections, however, it issettled position of law which can be gathered from catena of decisionsthat, when there is no prescribed period for limitation provided in theAct, the aggrieved party has to approach the Court Authority within areasonable period and that reasonable period is within three years.18.Learned Advocate for the petitioners places reliance on -11- W.P.No.7090.2014various judgments. He relies on Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade Vs.Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare and ors. [2001 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 688]wherein it is held that the reasonable time would depend on facts ofeach case but ordinarily, exercise of such powers after three yearsfrom finalization of the scheme may not be justified and the delay of15 years in approaching the Authorities was held to be grosslyunjustified. 19.Learned Advocate for petitioner further relies on DattuAppa Patil and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra [2006 (6) Bom. C. R.246], the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that theexercise of powers by Consolidation Officer after 27 years, is totallyunjustified and on that ground alone, the order was set aside.The learned Advocate for petitioner contends that in thepresent case, the delay of 37 years condoned by the DSLR has notbeen satisfactorily explained in the application, for condonation ofdelay. The only reason is given in the application is that when theconsolidation scheme was finalised, the legal heirs of Dagadu Misalwere minor. Therefore, they could not approach the appropriateauthority within time, for seeking necessary correction in the gatnumbers.20.Per contra, Mr. D. A. Mane, learned Advocate for -12- W.P.No.7090.2014respondent No. 4 submits that the land in question was owned by oneDagadu Tatya Misal, the applicant Ramdas Dagadu Misal is the legalheir of Dagadu Tatya Misal. The contents of his application addressedto the Settlement Commissioner, Pune dated 03.05.2007, states thatwhen the scheme was finalized in village Nipani Chincholi ofBhokardan Tahsil, Dist. Jalna, the land belonging to Dagadu Misalfrom Sy. No. 74/1 and 74/2 to the extent of 14A-25G was convertedin Gat No. 184. Dagadu Misal was owner of 21A-7G land, while thesurvey number was converted into gat number, his land was dividedinto two different gats and land to the extent of 13A-22G was shownin Gat No. 183 and rest all the land of 14A-25G was shown in Gat No.184, as a result of which there was reduction in total holding.21.During the formation of Gat No. 184, land belonging toDagadu Misal to the extent of 14A-25G is wrongly shown in Gat No.184 and Dagadu Misal has expired in the year 1971-72. Therefore, inorder to raise objections, there was no responsible person available inthe family of Dagadu Misal. Therefore, they could not raise objectionwithin limitation. 22.After filing of the application before the SettlementCommissioner on 03.05.2007, respondent No. 4 has filed an appealbefore the Superintendent of Land Record, Jalna on 04.08.2009 in -13- W.P.No.7090.2014which he has claimed correction in the Gat No. 183, 184 and 185since his land to the extent of 14 Acre was wrongly shown in Gat No.184. He has also filed an application for condonation of delay on06.11.2009, the reason for delay has been satisfactorily explained inthe application. Since the legal heirs of the original owner DagaduMisal were minor at the time of implementation of scheme, afterattaining majority, they have filed applications seeking corrections inthe area in the gat numbers. 23.It is his contention that after taking into consideration thesatisfactory explanation given by the respondent No. 4, theapplication for condonation of delay has been allowed by the DSLR.24.In the order, it is observed by the DSLR that after goingthrough the record, it transpires that appellant had filed anapplication before the Deputy Director of Land Record which wasforwarded to the Taluka Inspector of Land Record, Bhokardan, andthereafter, it was placed before the DSLR. The application forcondonation of delay has been allowed by the DSLR vide order dated28.07.2010 on the ground that if the appeal is decided on merits bycondoning the delay, it is not going to cause any prejudice to any ofthe parties.25.It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the -14- W.P.No.7090.2014respondent No. 4 that though the application for condonation of delayhas been decided by the DSLR on 28.07.2010, the petitioners havenot challenged the order of condonation of delay. After theapplication for condonation of delay has been allowed, the appealwas decided by order dated 23.05.2011. The petitioners had nottaken any steps to assail the order of condonation of delay. 26.According to the learned Advocate for respondent No. 4,in the appeal, directions have been given to the Dy.SLR to prepare aproposal for correction of the consolidation scheme according to themeasurement conducted on 08.08.2008. 27.The learned Advocate for respondent No. 4 submits thatthough the order passed in the appeal did not issue any directions inhis favour to carry out correction in the scheme, the petitioners hereinhave preferred appeal against the said order dated 23.05.2011 beforethe Deputy Director of Land Record, Aurangabad and from title oforder it can be gathered that it is filed by invoking the provisions ofSection 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.28.In the Appeal, the Deputy Director, after perusal ofrecord, has come to the conclusion that after perusal of record, thereappears change in the ownership in the Sub-Division, they are theclerical mistakes that have occurred during consolidation scheme,