1 wp 4869.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4869 OF 2011 1. Bansi S/o Uttam Thore, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Kekat Jalgaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Thakubai W/o Uttam Thore, Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o as above. .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Sheshrao S/o Nana Thore, Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Kekat Jalgaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Navnath S/o Sitaram Thore, Died his L.Rs. 2-A) Meerabai W/o Navnath Thore, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Opp. Telephone Office Pathardi Road, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2-B) Vijay S/o Navnath Thore, Age : 26 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above. 2 wp 4869.11 2-C) Dattaprasad S/o Navnath Thore, Age : 24 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above. 2-D) Pallavi D/o Navnath Thore, Age : 22 Years, Occu. : Education, R/o As above. 2-E) Prajakta D/o Navnath Thore, Age : 20 Years, Occu. : Education, R/o As above. 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya Mumbai - 32. 4. The Dy. Director, Land Record, Aurangabad. 5. Taluka Inspector, Land Record, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri K. F. Shingare, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri Wattamwar, Advocate h/f Shri S. G. Rudrawar, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH OCTOBER, 2011. 3 wp 4869.11 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petition arises out of the proceedings initiated by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. The present petitioners filed an application for correction in the area of Sy. No. 99/1 and 99/2 Gat No. 345 and 344. The same was allowed and the mutation entry No. 1229 was sanctioned. The present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the order passed by the respondent No. 4 before the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 allowed the said proceedings. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 3. Heard Shri Shingare, the learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Wattamwar, the learned counsel holding for Shri S. G. Rudrawar, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The learned counsel for respondents submits that, he has instructions to appear for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 also. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for respective parties, it 4 wp 4869.11 appears that the respondent No. 3 i. e. the Hon’ble Minister of State has decided the proceedings filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before him in absence of petitioners. 5. It is contended by Shri Wattamwar, the learned counsel that the petitioners had filed the caveat and in the caveat had given the address of their advocate. The office of the respondent No. 3 issued notice to the petitioners on the address of the advocate which was mentioned in the caveat. As such, no fault can be found in the proceedings taken up before the authorities. The petitioners themselves are to blame for giving wrong address. 6. The Hon’ble Minister of State has allowed the proceedings filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which was challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioners. The proceedings are in respect of immovable property and the correction in the consolidation record. The opportunity of hearing deserves to be given to the petitioners. It is manifest that no notice was served on the petitioners. I need not dilate on the aspect, whether the notice was properly sent or not. Suffice to observe that, no notice was served on the 5 wp 4869.11 petitioners of the proceedings before the respondent No. 3. 7. In the light of above the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the Hon’ble Minister of State shall rehear the said appeal/revision/proceedings initiated by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 afresh after giving due opportunity to all the parties. 8. The parties shall appear before the Hon’ble Minister of State on 20 th October, 2011. In view of the fact that all the parties are before this Court, there is no need to issue separate notice of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble Minister shall thereafter decide the proceedings expeditiously and preferably within six (6) months. The revenue record shall not be changed till the decision of the Hon’ble Minister in the said proceedings. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11