1. While considering the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides on the Civil Application, the learned Advocates have stated that the petition itself could be heard at this stage, since this Court has passed an order on 2.11.2017, thereby admitting the Writ Petition and granting interim relief as per paragraph Nos.5 and 6, set out in the said order.

2. In the above backdrop, I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates on the Writ Petition itself by taking it up for final hearing by consent.

3. Though Shri Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners, learned AGP. on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri Hon, the learned Sr. Advocate on behalf of respondent No.5, have canvassed their submissions in extenso, I find that only two issues have been raised in this petition for my consideration, which are as under:

(a) Whether Section 31A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, which does not prescribe any limitation, would permit a competent authority to entertain an application for modification in the scheme beyond a particular period?

(b) Whether, it would be the Settlement Commissioner alone who could have the authority to exercise powers under Section 31A of the said Act?

4. On both the above counts, the issue is no longer res integra. This Court in the matter of Limbraj Waman Yede Vs. State of Maharashtra [2004 (4) BCR 945], has concluded that as amongst the revenue officers, it would only be the Settlement Commissioner, who can exercise his powers under Section 31A, considering the provision under Section 32 of the said Act. The conclusions drawn by this Court in paragraph Nos.10 to 12 of the Limbraj's case (supra), read as under:

"10. If there is any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the consolidation scheme by virtue of section 31A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947), the Settlement Commissioner has authority to correct the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the consolidation scheme. No authority except the Settlement Commissioner has power to remove the defect arising on account of any clerical or arithmetical mistake including accidental slip or omission. Section 32 of the Act of 1947 imposes power on the Settlement Commissioner to make necessary corrections in consolidation scheme in respect of an error other than that referred to in section 31A of the Act of 1947. In that regard, the Settlement Commissioner is required to publish a draft of such variation shall state every amendment proposed to be made in the scheme. Within one month from the date of publication of draft variation scheme, the persons so affected shall communicate in writing objection to such variation to the Settlement Commissioner. After receipt of the objections Settlement Commissioner is required to hold enquiry as deemed fit and make necessary variation with or without modification. If the scheme is varied under subsection (3) of section 32 of the Act of 1947, a notification stating that the scheme has been varied, shall be published in Official Gazette and the scheme so varied shall be published in the prescribed manner in the village or village concerned. On plain reading of sections 31A and 32 of the Act of 1947, it is clear that power of correction and variation is vested in the Settlement Commissioner and none else. Having examined the correctness of the impugned order in the light of sections 31A and 32 of the Act of 1947, I am constrained to hold that the respondent No. 2 has no lawful authority to make corrections in the consolidation scheme. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have acted beyond their jurisdiction. The respondent No. 2, particularly acting on the suggestions made by respondent No. 3, passed impugned order which suffers from illegality.

11. In the case of (Gulabrao Kakade v. Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare), 2001(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 688 : 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 31, Division B