Per DESAI RANJANA (Smt.), J.: - In the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 5/3/ 1994 passed by respondent 2 - the Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records, Pune, and order dated 13/10/1995 passed by respondent 1 - the State of Maharashtra.

2. The facts, which give rise to the present petition may be shortly stated.

Appa Rama Patil, the father of the original petitioner owned agricultural lands in Village Asurle, Taluka Panhale, District Kolhapur. Yesaba Rama Patil - the father of respondent 3 owned Jirayat land bearing Survey No. 25/6 admeasuring 10 Gunthas and one Rama Dhondi Patil owned land bearing Survey No. 77/ 3B. In 1962, the Consolidation Scheme framed under The Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short, "the said - Act") came to be applied to Village Asrule. The work of consolidating small pieces of lands into larger blocks was undertaken. As a part of the Consolidation Scheme, land bearing Survey No. 25/6 admeasuring 10 Gunthas belonging to Yesba Rama Patil- the father of respondent 3 was allotted to Appa Rama Patil - the father of the original petitioner since, he also owned land bearing Survey No. 25/7 admeasuring 11 Gunthas. The consolidated land was given Gat No. 72 (for convenience, "the suit land"). In exchange, Yesba Rama Patil came to be allotted land bearing Survey No. 25/2 admeasuring 8 Gunthas, land bearing Survey No. 77/28 admeasuring 2 Gunthas owned by Appa Rama Patil and land bearing Survey No. 77/38 admeasuring 1 Guntha owned by Rama Dhondi Patil. The said consolidated hind was allotted Gat No. 68. Thus for the area of 10 Gunthas lost by Yesba Rama Patil, he came to be allotted an area of 11 Gunthas. This exchange of lands which took place in 1962 was by mutual consent.

3. On 2/1/1983, Appa Rama Patil died leaving the original petitioner as his heir. Yesaba Rama Patil died leaving respondent 3 as his heir.

4. According to the petitioner, on 25/8/1989, respondent 3 tried to obstruct his possession of the suit land i.e. Gat No. 72. Therefore, the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 97 of 1989 against respondent 3 and his brother for injunction. The petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction. On 5/ 9/1989, the Civil Court granted ad interim temporary injunction restraining respondent 3 from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. It was confirmed on 27/10/1989. Against the said order, respondent 3 filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 230 of 1989. It was dismissed on 19/3/1991.

5. It appears that in the meantime, respondent 3 made a complaint to respondent 2 - the Settlement Commissioner that the exchange of lands done in the year 1962 during the consolidation proceedings is illegal and without consent of his father. He prayed that the said consolidation of lands be cancelled and the Consolidation Scheme be varied to restore to him the land which had originally belonged to his father at the time of preparation of the Consolidation Scheme. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Ko1hapur held enquiry under the instructions of respondent 2. He recorded the statements of respondent 3 and his brothers and also of the petitioner. On 30/10/1990, the Assistant Consolidation Officer issued a notice to the petitioner proposing variation in the Consolidation Scheme as per the complaint of respondent 3. On 15/11/1990, the petitioner filed his objections to the said notice and requested that the proposed variation should not be effected. On 14/1/1992 and 3/11/1993, the Consolidation Officer, Ko1hapur, recorded the statements of the petitioner and respondent 3. By order/communication dated 5/3/1994, respondent 2 informed the petitioner that as per the complaint of respondent 3, the Consolidation Scheme had been varied on 9/10/1992. The petitioner was informed that in the enquiry it was found that the petitioner is not in possess

Click Here to Read the rest of this document