Variation of finalized consolidation scheme on error grounds barred after unreasonable delay; ordinarily three years from implementation, despite no statutory limit, as scheme attains finality with original owner's consent.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Heard finally at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner, son of the original owner of the land, Gut No. 1206, assails the order dated 09^th July, 2015 passed by the Respondent No.1 - the State Minister (revenue), Government of Maharashtra in Appeal No. 3315/899/PK-197/J-6 whereby dismissed the Appeal, to correct the consolidation scheme of land Gut No.1206 at village Kashti, Tq. Shrigonda and the order/communication dated 15^th July, 2014 of Respondent No.3 informing the Petitioner that his application was disposed of without any action. Also, the order/communication dated 3^rd July, 2014 of Respondent No.2, thereby directed Respondent No.3 to scrutinise the scheme and inform the Petitioner accordingly, has preferred this petition.

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts of the case can be stated in brief, as follows:-

On 20^th March, 1974, a consolidation scheme was implemented, whereby the land survey Nos. 6/3, 6/6 and 6/7 of village Kashti, Tq. Shrigonda were converted into Gut Nos. 1212, 1206 and 1208, respectively, by following the due procedure of law. However, the Petitioner, being the legal heir of the original landowner, namely Narsing Pachpute, after a lapse of thirty-eight years, had filed the application/representation on 17^th September, 2012, before the Respondent No.2 to rectify the area of the land owned by his father. By order/communication dated 15^th July, 2014, the respondent No.3 informed the Petitioner that the said application was disposed of without any action being taken. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the State Minister (Revenue), who, after considering the material on record, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

4. Mr. Hon, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, during the arguments, took me through the Page Nos. 50 to 60 of the Petition and submitted that the learned authorities have committed an error while implementing the consolidation scheme and passing the order, thereby reducing the area of 39 R land belonging to the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the said orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. He specifically pointed out Clause Nos. 3 and 10 of the representation dated 05.03.2013, and the actual facts of the application, and submitted that the petitioner has rightly filed the application /representation for cancellation of the order passed while implementing the consolidation scheme.

5. He drew my attention to the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records to the District Superintendent of Land Records vide communication dated 16^th December, 2013, below the table at Page Nos. 58 and 59, he has pointed out the observation of the learned Deputy Superintendent of Land Records that while implementing the consolidation scheme the total area of the land, Survey No.6 was reduced by 39 R. Therefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records proposes that it would be appropriate to rectify the area of the land in respect of Gut No.1206 as per the application/representa