(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Review Application No. 33 of 2007 (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 76 of 2004, against the order dated 12-1-2004 in Writ Petition No. 4536/2003 ) Dagadu s/o. Rajaram Yede, Age : 74 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Anjanwati, Taluka & District : Beed, Through its G.P.A., Sitaram Mahadeo Yede, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Vaijala, Taluka : Patoda, District : Beed. .. Applicant. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Superintendent of Land Records, Beed, District : Beed. 3. The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Beed, Taluka & District : Beed. 4. Limbraj Waman Yede, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture. (2) 5. Nandabai Atmaram Yede, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 6. Sheshrao Narhari Yede, .. Non-applicants Age : 38 years, (Nos.1 to 3 - Occupation : Agriculture. Original respondents & 7. Narhari Fakira Yede, Nos.4 to 7 - Age : 73 years, Original petitioners) Occupation : Agriculture. Respondent nos.4 to 7 all R/o. Vaijala, Taluka : Patoda, District : Beed. ....................... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Mr. N.R. Bhavar, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for non-applicant nos.1 to 3. Mr. G.K. Thigle, Advocate, for non-applicant nos.4 to 7. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 2ND MARCH 2010 (3) COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. By this review petition, the applicant / appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 76/2004 is seeking review of the order dated 27th April 2004 passed by the Division Bench. 2. The Division Bench did not entertain the Letters Patent Appeal, as the appellant was granted liberty by the learned Single Judge to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the Writ Petition, reveals that the review petitioner had moved an application purportedly under Section 31A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (For short, "the Act"), seeking correction in the consolidation scheme. 3. The Superintendent of Land Records entertained the application moved by the applicant, purportedly under Section 31A of the Act and allowed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has held that, in substance, the application moved by the applicant was under Section 32 of the Act and hence, set aside the order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records on the ground that he had no jurisdiction and granted liberty to the applicant herein to approach the Settlement Commissioner, as the learned Single (4) Judge was of the view that the Settlement Commissioner alone has power to direct corrections, as well as, to make suitable variation in the scheme, in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act. 4. It is the case of the applicant, that under the liberty granted by this court, the petitioner approached the Settlement Commissioner yet again, by moving an application under Section 31A of the Act. However, the Settlement Commissioner pointed out that the Superintendent of Land Records had rightly decided the application moved by the applicant, in the first instance, as the same was under Section 31A of the Act. On being so informed, the applicant has moved this review petition seeking review of the order passed by the Division Bench, disposing the Letters Patent Appeal. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has invited our attention to a communication dated 5th February 2000 where under powers are delegated by the State Government to the Superintendent of Land Records. On closure scrutiny of the said Government Resolution, it can be seen that powers under Section 31A of the Act alone are delegated. It is thus obvious that powers under Section 32 are only available for being exercised by the Settlement Commissioner. (5) 6. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to review the order passed by the Division Bench. As the learned Single Judge has found that the present applicant has invoked the powers under Section 32 of the Act, the authority competent to exercise the said power would be Settlement Commissioner. 7. In the result, the Review Application is dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/ra33