Delay in filing an appeal against consolidation orders must be satisfactorily explained; otherwise, the order is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. Petitioners are taking exception to the order dated 29/06/2018, passed by respondent No.2 District Superintendent of Land Records, Ahmednagar, in Consolidation Appeal No.825/2016, and the consequential notices issued by respondent No.3 Deputy Superintendent of Land Records. Vide order dated 29/06/2018. The order passed respondent No.2 on 28/02/2017 has been corrected to the extent that measurement of sub-division done at the time of consolidation scheme in Survey No.95 at village Digras, Taluka Rahuri, has been cancelled holding that the same is defective and respondent No.2 Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Rahuri, has been directed to submit amended proposal in view of Section 32(1) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short ‘the said Act’), according to the 7/12 extract existing prior to the coming into force of the consolidation scheme.

3. According to petitioners, consolidation scheme was made applicable in the village Digras in the year 1978. By virtue of application filed in the year 2015, amendment is sought in the consolidation scheme after a huge delay of 37 years, which is not permissible in the eyes of law as well as in view of various authoritative pronouncements of this Court. The reasonable period for seeking such relief is held to be 3 to 4 years from initiation of scheme. Therefore, petitioners are challenging the order dated 29/06/2018, on the ground of delay and latches.

4. Brief case of the petitioners is that:-

(I) Consolidation scheme is made applicable to the village Digras by issuing notification on 06/04/1978. Petitioners are legal heirs of deceased Rakhmaji Gawade, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are legal heirs of one Dasharath Gawade and respondent No.7 is purchaser of the land from respondent Nos.4 to 6. Petitioners are concerned with Gut No.153 which was Survey No.95/10, whereas respondent Nos.4 to 7 are concerned with Gut No.162 which was originally Survey No.95/2.

(II) On 29/08/2015 respondent No.4 filed application addressed to the respondent No.1 Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik, seeking amendment in the record of Gut No.162 on the ground that his holding in Gut No.162 has been reduced after consolidation. It was contended that prior to implementation of consolidation scheme in the year 1978, ‘Falani map’ was prepared as per the cultivation and possession of land by respective owners and accordingly 7/12 extract was prepared. It was the contention of respondent No.4 that without taking any assistance from original record, the scheme has been prepared. As a result, his holding has been reduced in the revenue records. On receiving the application filed by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 issued communication to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 in turn has directed the respondent No.3 to conduct an inquiry.

(III) Respondent No.3 has prepared report on 29/01/2016 and sent it to respondent No.2 informing him that no mistake or illegality has occurred while preparation of the consolidation scheme, hence, there is no necessity to carry out any change. It is also informed that the applicant had previously filed similar application to respondent No.1 and the same has been disposed of vide communication dated 11/10/2005 and entry to that effect has already been taken in the complaint register. Hence, considering that there is no infirmity or error in the scheme and the earlier application filed by applicant has already been decided on 11/10/2005, the complaint filed by respondent No.4 can be disposed of.

(IV) In spite of report submitted by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has again directed respondent No.3 to submit a fresh report, accordingly respondent No.3 has again submitted report on 31/03/2016. In spite of two reports, sent by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has issued communication to respondent No.4, directing him to file Appeal before respondent