The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'reasonable time' under Section 32 of the Consolidation Act and its application in the context of seeking variation of a consolidation scheme.

JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of all the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The question that is to be answered in this Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether in the facts and circumstances, the Settlement Commissioner should have ordered variation of the scheme under the provisions of Section 32 the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 (herein after ‘the Consolidation Act’).

3. The facts as are essential for decision of the Writ Petition may be summarized as under :

For the purpose of consolidation of lands in the village Savargaon, Taluka Shirur Anantpal, District Latur, a survey was carried out in the year 1970-71. The Scheme under Section 21 of the Act was finalized on 31.03.1990. The petitioners’ father, the predecessor of the respondent No. 5 Pandharinath Tulshiram Shelke and few other persons were the owners in possession of different portions of the land Survey No. 1. According to the Scheme, the different portions from Survey No. 1 were allotted Gat numbers as follows :

4. Under a registered sale deed dated 24.07.1974, respondent No. 4, who was then a minor through his mother guardian, purchased a portion of land admeasuring 1 Hectares 51 Ares from Pandharinath Tulshiram Shelke. However, no steps were taken to mutate his name in place of Pandharinath Tulshiram Shelke in the revenue record. Consequently, in spite of such transfer during finalization of the Scheme name of Pandharinath was shown as the owner of the portion as is mentioned herein above in the chart to 1 Hectare 22 Ares portion only.

5. The respondent No. 4 raised an objection on 20.04.2005 by submitting an application to the office of the Land Records by presenting a copy of the sale deed. The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Nilanga, carried out measurement of the Gat Nos. 1 & 2 on 23.03.2007 and submitted a report to the District Superintendent of Land Records (Respondent No. 3) suggesting that there was no error in the Scheme that was finalized and requested to dispose of the grievance of respondent No. 5 in accordance with the Government Circular dated 17.03.2004.

6. The respondent No. 5 once again applied to the respondent No. 3 who allowed his application by the order dated 31.03.2012. Pursuant to such order for remeasurement passed by the respondent No. 3, another measurement was undertaken by the surveyor on 27.05.2012 of lands Gat Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9. In the end, the respondent No. 3 submitted a proposal to respondent No. 2 (Settlement Commissioner) proposing modification in the Scheme as contemplated under Section 32 of the Consolidation Act. The petitioners raised objection to the proposed variation by submitting objection petitions on 12.02.2016 and 25.02.2016. The respondent No. 2 by the impugned order dated 03.08.2017, allowed the objections raised by the petitioners and refused to approve the proposed variation. The respondent No. 5 challenged the Order before the State under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned State Minister (Revenue) allowed the Revision, quashed and set aside the order of the respondent No. 2 and directed the latter to undertake a fresh enquiry and to correct the record of Gat No. 2 belonging to the respondent No. 5. Hence this petition.

7. The learned Advocate Mr. Golewar submitted that there was no error, irregularity or i