1. Present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has, by the said judgment and order, rejected the petition preferred by present appellant.

1.1 The appellant is the original petitioner. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant challenged the order dated 21.02.2009 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the said authority confirmed the order dated 20.03.2006 passed by present respondent No.2 in Fragmentation Case No.72/2005. The said proceedings of Fragmentation Case No.72/2005 were initiated by the Competent Authority under the provision of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In the aforesaid two concurrent orders, the authorities passed order against present appellant and declared the transaction entered into by the appellant as illegal being in violation of the provision under the Act. Aggrieved by the said two concurrent orders, the appellant filed the writ petition which came to be rejected by the impugned order.

2. The factual backdrop of present appeal can be summarized thus:

3. The appellant claims to be an agriculturist. He purchased on 5th February, 2002, a parcel of land bearing Survey No.22/paiki admeasuring two acres situate in Village Chautra, Taluka Rajula. After the execution and registration of the sale deed, the name of the appellant was mutated in the revenue record.

3.1 The aforesaid transaction and mutation of the Entry No.590 took place in 2002. The said entry was duly certified also.

3.2 After the mutation of the entry in present appellant's name (in respect of the aforesaid land bearing Survey No.22/paiki in Village Chautra) was made, as aforesaid, in 2002, the Mamlatdar initiated proceedings by issuing notice dated 16.01.2006 i.e. after almost 3? years under the Fragmentation Act and in March-2006, present respondent No.2-Deputy Collector, Rajula passed order holding that the said transaction was contrary to the provision of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs.100/- while cancelling the transaction.

3.3 Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.03.2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajula (i.e. present respondent No.2), the appellant herein preferred revision application before present respondent No.1.

3.4 The said revision application, which was registered as Application No.5/2006, came to be rejected by the respondent No.1 by order dated 21.02.2009.

3.5 The appellant-petitioner claimed that he came to know about the order dated 21.02.2009 when the Mamlatdar issued notice under Section 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code i.e. on or around 17.05.2009. Thereafter, the appellant preferred writ petition challenging the order dated 20.03.2006 and the order dated 21.02.2009. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 01.09.2009 rejected the petition. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred present appeal.

4. Mr.B.C. Dave, learned advocate has appeared for the appellant and Ms.Krina Calla, the learned AGP has appeared for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.K. Joshi, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent No.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for contesting parties and have also perused the record. The opponent No.3 has filed affidavit opposing the appeal and the appellant has filed a rejoinder affidavit. In view of the rival contentions, the appeal is admitted for final hearing and at the request of the appellant and with the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing and decision. The learned AGP and Mr.Joshi, learned advocate for private opponents have waived notice of Admission/Rule.

5. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant assailed the orders by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that the initiation of the proceedings under the Act after lapse or delay of almost three years is fatal and the said delay has vitiated the entire proceedi