IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that applications for correction of consolidation schemes must be filed within a reasonable time, typically three years, and that significant delays render such applications invalid.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, Petition is taken up for hearing.

2. By this petition, Petitioners challenge Order dated 17th July 2019 passed by the Minister-Revenue in rejecting the Revision Application. Petitioners had preferred the Revision challenging the Order dated 19th May 2016 passed by Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik Region, Nashik, by which the appeal of Respondents was allowed and order passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Nashik dated 14.10.2015 came to be set aside. By his Order dated 14.10.2015, the District Superintendent of Land Records had rejected Petitioners' appeal filed under Section 31A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, 1947 (Fragmentation Act) for correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes in the Consolidation Scheme finalized on 15.11.1964.

3. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the present petition, it is not necessary to record facts in detail. Suffice it to state that one Sukhdeo Motiram Deore owned Land bearing Survey No.205 admeasuring area of 19 Acre 4 Gunthas. Said Sukhdeo Motiram Deore sold land admeasuring 9 Acre 15 Gunthas to Kacharu Dhanaji Ahire on 1st March 1958 and retained the balance land admeasuring 9 Acre 29 Gunthas. The land admeasuring 9 Acre 15 Gunthas sold to Shri. Kacharu Dhanaji Ahire was assigned Survey No.205/1 whereas the land admeasuring 9 Acre 29 Gunthas retained by Sukhdeo Motiram Deore was assigned Survey No. 205/2. Out of the land remaining in ownership and possession of Sukhdeo Motiram Deore, land admeasuring 17 Gunthas was acquired for irrigation and he continued to retain land admeasuring 9 Acre 12 Gunthas.

4. Kachru Dhanaji Ahire sold the entire land bearing S. No. 205/1 admeasuring 9 Acre 15 Gunthas to Ramchandra Kashinath Patil in two tranches by way of Sale Deeds executed on 09.02.1959 and 06.04.1959.

5. The Consolidation Scheme in the village was implemented in the year 1964-1965 and was finalized vide Order dated 15.11.1964. The land which remained in ownership of Ramchandra Kashinath Patil (Survey No.205/1) was assigned Gat No.128. Petitioners claim that although the area of land under Survey No.205/1 was only 9 Acre 15 Gunthas, Gat No.128 recorded area of 12 Acre 11 Gunthas (4H 9R) thereby increasing the area of land in ownership of Ramchandra Kashinath Patil by 4 Acre 5 Gunthas. Petitioners submit that on account of increase in the area of land under Gat No.128, there was corresponding decrease in Petitioners' land which was assigned Gat No.127 and as against original area of land bearing Survey No.205/2 of 9 Acre 12 Gunthas, Gat No.127 was assigned area admeasuring only 5 Acre 21 Gunthas. That there was reduction in area of land under Gat No.127 by 4 Acre 5 Gunthas which erroneously got included in the area of land bearing Gat No.128.

6. Under the above factual background, Petitioners filed proceedings before District Superintendent of Land Records on 29.03.2014 for correction in the calculations of area in Gat Nos. 127 and 128 under provisions of Section 31A of the Fragmentation Act. By Order dated 14.10.2015, the District Superintendent of Land Records rejected Petitioners' appeal. Petitioners filed further appeals before Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik, which came to be allowed by Order dated 19.05.2016 directing the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records to submit a proposal for correction of area of Gat No.127 and 128 under the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Fragmentation Act. Respondents filed Revision Application before Minister-Revenue, which came to be allowed by Order dated 17.07.2019 setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records. Petitioners have filed present petition challenging the Minister's Order dated 17.07.2019.

7. I have heard Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. He would submit that the proceedings initiated by P