1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4392 OF 2009 Nivruti s/o Sopan Mali, age 50 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o Kati, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. (Copy to be served upon G.P. High Court Bench, At Aurangabad. 2- The Deputy Director Land Records, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 3- The Superintendent of Land Records, Osmanabad. 4- The Taluka Inspector Land Records, Tuljapur, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. 5- Daud Latif Shaikh, age 62 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Kati, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. 6- Kondiba s/o Dattu Kale, age 63 years, Occ. Agriculture, r/o Kati, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. Respondents 2 Shri K.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.V. Naiknaware, Advocate for the respondent 5 and 6 R-1 to 4 waived. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard. Rule. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. Petitioner herein is raising exception to the orders passed by the authorities under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The respondent presented an application seeking correction in the scheme to Deputy Director, Land Records, Aurangabad on 04.04.2006. The application was entertained by the Deputy Director Land Records, Aurangabad and concerned authority further directed Superintendent of Land Records, Osmanabad to conduct inquiry. The Superintendent of Land Records in pursuance to the directions issued by the Deputy Director, Land Records, after holding due inquiry rejected the application tendered by the petitioner by his order dated 26.09.2007. Petitioner there after again presented separate application to Superintendent of Land Records making out the same grievance. Application was entertained by the concerned authority and order came to be passed on 3 29.10.2007 thereby allowing the application. The Superintendent of Land Records further directed the cancellation of revenue entry No.2162 recorded earlier. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Superintendent of Land Records appeal came to be presented by the petitioner herein to the Deputy Director, Land Records, Aurangabad. After considering the appeal, Appellate Authority, however, was pleased to dismiss the same by his order dated 07.01.2009. The order passed by both the authorities below are subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Superintendent of Land Records has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and pass order. The application presented by respondent is under section 32 of the Act and authority empowered to exercise jurisdiction in the matter is Settlement Commissioner. Superintendent of Land Records, thus has no jurisdiction to to pass orders. It is also further contended that authorities below have exercised the powers under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and rendered decision. In fact, the procedure prescribed by the Consolidation Act is required to be followed while rendering decision. It transpires on perusal of the order that authorities below have rendered decision in the matter as if the matter arises out of complaint under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Apart from this aspect, the deciding authority has no jurisdiction to entertain application. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate 4 Authority is also rendered illegal on account of want of jurisdiction in issuing initial orders by the authority of first instance. The learned counsel appearing for respondent contends that he should be given an opportunity to submit his grievance before the appropriate authority prescribed under the provision of Consolidation Act and said authority be directed to decide the application/appeal in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. The request made is reasonable one. Respondent has liberty to approach the appellate authority provided under section 32 of the Act and to raise his grievance. The authority dealing with the matter shall decide the issue as and when raised in accordance with the provisions of law and consider the same on its own merit. The impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and same are accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘C’. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. It is clarified that all the grounds of challenge that would be raised by the parties before the Appellate Forum are specifically kept open and this court has not considered the merits of contentions raised by either of parties. 5. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J. ) *** aaa/4392.09