The main legal point established in the judgment is that any application seeking modification of a finalised consolidation scheme under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, must be made within three years of finalisation of the scheme.

Manish Pitale, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude waives service for Respondent No. 5. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is – as to whether the application submitted by Respondent No. 5 under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for reopening of consolidation proceeding, that attained finality in the year 1971, could be said to be within limitation, and whether such a proceeding before Respondent No. 4 – Dy. Superintendent of Land Records was maintainable.

3. The Petitioners are agriculturists, whose names are recorded in the record of rights pertaining to lands situated in Gat Nos. 1153, 1646 and 1647/1 at village Kasba Aalte, taluka Hatkanangale, district Kolhapur. The consolidation proceeding pertaining to the said lands attained finality on publication of such scheme in the Government Gazette on 4.3.1971, which was brought into effect on 29.3.1971. The revenue record was mutated in terms of the said scheme on 9.2.1973, and accordingly names of the Petitioners were mutated in the revenue record i.e. 7/12 extracts of the said lands as owners. It is the case of the Petitioners that after about 44 years, in December 2015, an application has been submitted by Respondent No. 5 seeking to reopen the said consolidation proceeding, which had attained finality in the year 1971.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that such an application after a long delay of 44 years is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on judgments of this Court, wherein it has been held that although Section 32 of the said Act does not specify any period, within which an application can be made under the said provision, such an application can be made only within reasonable time, which has been held to be a period of three years. The Petitioners had raised such an objection regarding limitation before Respondent No. 4 – Dy. Superintendent of Land Revenue, Kolhpur, but the said objection stood rejected by an order dated 6.5.2017 passed by the said Authority. The Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to quash and set aside the entire proceeding initiated by Respondent No. 5 and specific prayers have been made for quashing the communication dated 23.12.2015 issued by Respondent No. 2 – Dy. Director of Land Records referring the application of Respondent No. 5 to Respondent No. 4 and for quashing of the communication cum direction dated 6.5.2017, whereby the objections raised by the Petitioners have been rejected and an order has been passed stating that the changes prayed for by Respondent No. 5 in the consolidation scheme are being put up before the superior authority for sanction.

5. On 29.6.2017 this Court had issued notice in the writ petition, directing that it could be disposed of at the stage of admission. In response to the notice issued by this Court, an affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5 through power of attorney holder. It is stated in the said affidavit in reply that Respondent No. 5 is unable to come to Mumbai due to some domestic difficulties and illness, as a consequence of which affidavit in reply has been filed by his power of attorney holder. In the affidavit in reply, it is primarily submitted that contention of the Petitioners regarding delay of 44 years in reopening of the consolidation proceeding is absolutely false, since objections to the consolidation scheme have been raised from 1981 onwards. It is submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 5 that the Petitioners were very well aware about the objections being raised since 1981 and that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of suppression of facts by the Petitioners.

6. It is submitted in the reply that although the consolidation scheme was finalised