JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners are assailing the order dated 28th May 2012 rendered by the Deputy Director, Land Records, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad – respondent 1 herein, (Exhibit ‘E’), and the order dated 15th July 2014, rendered by the respondent 1, (Exhibit ‘H’) in purported exercise of power under Section 32(3) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short “The Act”).

3. The petitioners contend that the subject matter is original survey 40 situated at village Shelud Taluka and District Aurangabad. Survey 40 was divided into four parts, to wit, survey 40/1 admeasuring 6 acres 15 gunthas, survey 40/2 admeasuring 6 acres 15 gunthas, survey 40/3 admeasuring 6 acres 15 gunthas and survey 40/4 admeasuring 6 acres 14 gunthas.

4. The petitioners contend that in the year 1969, a consolidation scheme was implemented at village Shelud. The lands were consolidated taking into consideration the quality of soil, the convenience of the parties and other relevant factors. During the consolidation, the parties chose the holding. Some agriculturists were allotted fertile land which was less than their earlier holding and vice versa. A consolidation statement came to be prepared after completion of formalities. The petitioners contend that after the consolidation, the holdings were consolidated in Gats 69, 124, 125, 126 & 127.

5. The petitioners contend that 37 years after the implementation of the consolidation scheme, on 5th January 2006 Shri Bhausaheb Bajirao Chaudhary – respondent 3 herein, preferred an application before the respondent No.1 contending that the area recorded as regards the land allotted, was incorrect.

6. The petitioners contend that pursuant to the application preferred by respondent 3, the respondent 1 issued notices to the petitioners. The petitioners registered their vehement objection to the application preferred by respondent 3 on the premise that the authority did not have the jurisdiction to rectify the consolidation scheme after the lapse of more than 37 years. Certain other objections were also raised.

7. The petitioners contend that the objections submitted by the petitioners were allowed by the respondent 1. The proposal for modification of the consolidation scheme was rejected. However, in the same breath, the respondent 1 issued further directions for initiation of the proceedings U/S. 32(1) of the Act, vide order dated 28th May 2012.

8. The petitioners contend that pursuant to the directions issued by the respondent 1, notices were issued on 6th December 2013, which were received only by petitioners 4 & 5, who submitted elaborate objections to the proposed modification and the consolidation scheme. The petitioners state that vide order dated 15th July 2014, the respondent 1 rejected the objections raised by petitioners 4 & 5 and directed the modification of the consolidation scheme in accordance with the provisions of Section 32(3) of the Act.

9. The petitioners contend that the respondent 1 could not have invoked power U/S. 32 of the Act 45 years after the implementation of the consolidation scheme. The respondent 1 ignored the well settled legal position, enunciated by atleast three Division Bench decisions of this Court and several decisions of learned Single Judge.

10. The petitioners contend that the orders impugned are contrary to the circular dated 17th March 2004 issued by the Settlement Commissioner & Director of Land Records, State of Maharashtra, Pune.

11. The petitioners contend that the order dated 15th July 2014 is inconsistent with the earlier order dated 28th May 2012.

12. The petitioners contend that none of the petitioners consented for ‘ONE KHATA–ONE GAT’, as is observed by the respondent 1 in the order dated 28th May 2012.

13. The petitioners contend that the r