*1* wp.6090.09.911.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6090 OF 2009 Yeshwant Balu Gavali and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, for the Petitioners. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 02nd August, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr.Patne, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Despite notice being served on the Respondent Nos.4 to 10, none appears on their behalf. The Writ Petition has been dismissed as against the Respondent No.11. 2 A perusal of the petition and the impugned order, so also, the affidavit in reply, would show that the Additional Chief Secretary and the Officer on Special Duty (Appeals), Government of Maharashtra, entertained the revision application filed in the year December, 2002 and allowed it by the impugned order only on the ground that the consolidation scheme was notified for village Karve, Taluka : Khanapur, District : Sangli in the year 1970 and the first application for re- measurement under Section 32(1) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 was made in the year 1997 that is 27 years after the notification of consolidation scheme. Therefore, according to the Additional Chief Secretary, the modification would not have been sought after 27 years. The powers to modify the scheme should have been exercised within a reasonable period of time. That having not been done, the Additional Chief Secretary proceeded to *2* wp.6090.09.911.sxw set aside the order impugned before him. 3 Before me, it has been argued that the Petitioner No.3 was in Indian Army and he made several representations and applications to the Government and the Revenue authorities to the effect that at the time of consolidation, due to illiteracy of his father, a thumb impression was taken on the consolidation papers and after the death of Petitioner No.3’s father, they came to know about the illegality and irregularity in the consolidation scheme. In these circumstances, the application was made and when the notices were issued to the Respondent Nos.4 to 11, they appeared before the authorities. At the spot inspection and when the panchanama was drawn, these Respondents did not raise any protest. There was no argument before the authorities below that the application made by the Petitioners cannot be considered as it is made after 27 years. Further, from perusal of the official record itself it was clear that the lands of the Petitioners admeasuring 2 Acre and 16 Guntas came to be allotted to the Respondent Nos.4 to 11 and in that exchange, the Petitioners received only 11 Guntas from the Respondent Nos.4 to 11 in the consolidation scheme. Due to irregularity in the consolidation scheme, the area of 2 Acres and 5 Guntas was increased in the share of the Respondent Nos.4 to 11 and the distribution was, therefore, unequal and unbalanced. 4 None appears on behalf of the contesting Respondents though they are duly served. From perusal of the petition and annexures thereto including the affidavit in reply of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is apparent that the Additional Chief Secretary did not advert to any of these contentions. It is not recorded as to why the proceedings were said to be beyond reasonable period of time. The Additional Chief Secretary does not seem to have adverted to any of the submissions including about the *3* wp.6090.09.911.sxw repeated requests in writing made by the Petitioner No.3. Further, the Additional Chief Secretary does not seem to have taken into consideration the argument that none of the contesting Respondents before him ever protested when their statements were recorded and the spot inspection was conducted. Before the authorities below the Additional Chief Secretary/ State Government, the contesting Respondents did not argue that the proceedings cannot be initiated or taken up after the period of 27 years. 5 In these circumstances, whether, a division bench judgment in Writ Petition No.3135/1996 decided on 03.10.2006, relied upon by the Additional Chief Secretary was applicable or not, should have been considered by giving proper, detailed and elaborate reasons. The State Government/ the revisional authority should have considered the rival contentions before arriving at the conclusion afore stated. 6 In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is quashed and set aside. The revision application preferred by the Respondent Nos.4 to 11 shall be placed for consideration a fresh before the concerned Secretary/ Revisional Authority and an endeavour should be made to decide it as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While deciding the matter a fresh, the authority should not be influenced by any of the findings and conclusions recorded earlier. With these observations and clarifications, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions including the aspect of limitation and each one of them are kept open. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)