1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2939 OF 2007 1.Shri Mukinda Laxman Jadhav & ors. Petitioners vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b.Mr.R.V.Bansode for the petitioners. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr.P.S.Gole for respondents 5, 8, 11 to 13, 29 and 30. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 4th August, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Godbole with Mr.Bansode, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Gole, the learned counsel for respondents 5, 8, 11 to 13, 29 and 30 and Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, the learned AGP for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The consolidation scheme was made applicable and sanctioned to village: Upalve, taluka-Phaltan in the year 1975. In the consolidation scheme the respondents 3 to 30 who are successor in title of Dadu allotted Gat No.225 admeasuring 4 Hectres 17 Rs. and the petitioners were allotted Gat No.226 admeasuring 3 Hectres 29 Rs. This consolidation Gat numbers was done with consent of parties. The predecessor in title of respondents 3 to 2 30 made an application in the year 1977 for correction of consolidation scheme. The parties agreed for correction of the consolidation scheme and, accordingly, original scheme was amended on 14.1.1982. In view of this amendment Gat No.225 was increased to 4 Hectres 70 Rs. and Gat No.226 was reduced to 2 Hectres 82 Rs. The effect of the amended consolidation scheme was given in the Record of Rights of the respective gat numbers. The petitioners thereafter in the year 2003 preferred Revision before the Deputy Director of Land Records. This Revision was dismissed. Petitioners second Revision before the Government was also dismissed. 3. After perusal of the amended consolidation scheme, I find that the same was effected with consent of the respective parties. The consent was given for amendment of scheme by the predecessor in title of petitioner nos. 3 to 8. Petitioner no. 1 and 2 are successor in title of Laxman. The petitioner no.2-Nagu, real brother of petitioner no.1 has signed the consent terms. Since the consolidation scheme was amended by consent, there is no reason to interfere in the same. Be that as it may, the amended consolidation scheme was challenged by the petitioners for the first time in the year 2003 i.e. after lapse of 20 years by way of filing Revision before the Deputy Director of Land Records. The Revision is hopelessly time barred as same was not filed within the 3 reasonable period. In that view of the matter also, no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 4. Mr.Godbole, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners houses are there in the part of land Gat No.226 which was allotted to the respondents by virtue of the amended consolidation scheme. He submits that the petitioners are ready to give equivalent alternative area of land to the respondents so as to save their houses. If that be so, the petitioners are at liberty to make appropriate application before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]