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 cou