1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2628 OF 2008 Shri Laxman P. Patil Petitioner vs. Shri Ambalal S. Zalake & ors. Respondents Mr.M.A. Chaudhari for the petitioner. Mr.Dilip Bodake for respondent No.2. Mr.P.I.Khemani, AGP for respondent Nos. 7 and 8. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 8th July, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bodke, the learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner, by the present petition, challenges the order of Deputy Director, Land Records, Pune Region,Pune whereby the petitioner’s application under section 32 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short, "Consolidation Act") for rectification of the consolidation scheme came to be rejected. The petitioner’s application came to be rejected on the ground that consolidation scheme was finalised in the year 1966 and the present application came to be filed 2 in the year 1998 i.e. after 32 years. It was held by the Deputy Director of Land Records that in view of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the said Consolidation Act, the petitioner ought to have applied within the period of 30 days from the date of publication of scheme under Section 19(1) of the said Consolidation Act. 3. The issue regarding the limitation to exercise the power under Section 32(1) of the said Act is now covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shri Shri Shri Dattu Appa Patil (Deceased through L.Rs.) vs. Dattu Appa Patil (Deceased through L.Rs.) vs. Dattu Appa Patil (Deceased through L.Rs.) vs. State State State of Maharashtra & ors., 2006(6) All MR 421. of Maharashtra & ors., 2006(6) All MR 421. of Maharashtra & ors., 2006(6) All MR 421. The Division Bench of this Court held that powers under Section 32(1) can be exercised within reasonable time. In the present case, the application is filed after the period of 32 years and therefore I do not find any illegality or perversity in the approach adopted by the Deputy Director of Land Records while passing the impugned order. No ground is made out to interfere with the said impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]