1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.5868 Of 2009 Baliram S/o Bapurao Muley. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Another. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 5th NOVEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the consolidation scheme in the village took place in the year 1978. Petitioner’s original land was Sy.No.47. During consolidation 2 two Gut numbers are carved out as Gut Nos. 103 and 231. The petitioner’s possession is wrongly shown in Gut No.103. The petitioner filed an application to the Consolidation Commissioner on 3-7-2007, which is not annexed to this petition, seeking for some correction. The said request was forwarded to the authority concerned i.e. the Deputy Director of Land Records Aurangabad which was rejected by a communication dated 23-1-1008. 3) In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State, the case history is narrated in detail. Original documents having thumb impressions of the grandfather of the petitioner, their consent to the scheme are also annexed. We have perused the reply filed by the State. The learned AGP is right in the submission that the petitioner's objection is highly belated one as the consolidation scheme had been finalised in the year 1978 itself. 3 3) Prima facie we find that the petitioner is in possession of his land. The objection raised would amount to challenge to the consolidation scheme after number of years. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India we are not inclined to interfere in the concluded issue. 4) The writ petition is dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.5868.09