*1* wp.41.10.918.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.41 OF 2010 Sunil Ramaji Shinde and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- Bapu Rakhmaji Doke and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Rahul S. Kate, for the Petitioners. Mr.Vijay Gharat, for the Respondent No.3. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for the Respondent No.4/State. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 09th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 It is grievance of the Petitioners who are aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed on 12.08.2009 by the Minister of State for Revenue, that they are owners of the land bearing Gat Nos.35, 36 and 1212 situate at village Udapur, taluka : Junnar, district : Pune. There was consolidation scheme which was confirmed by the order dated 08.03.1976 and the effect of the same is that the area of 10 R belonging to or held by the Respondent No.1 was amalgamated with the area of the Respondent No.2 who was already having 11 R of Survey No.36 and therefore, the Respondent No.2 became the holder or entitled to 21 R of Survey No.36. By a registered sale deed, the Petitioners purchased 9 R from the Respondent No.2 and by another registered sale deed, the remaining 12 R from Gat No.36 from the Respondent No.2. The Petitioners in all purchased 21 R land from the Respondent No.2. At that time, the Respondent No.2 also executed an affidavit confirming this transaction which affidavit is filed as early on 27.02.1991. It is case of the *2* wp.41.10.918.sxw Petitioners that the Respondent No.1 received the area of 4 R more than what was given by him to the Respondent No.2.. 2 Despite all this, in the name of the Respondent No.1 an application was made on 13.12.1985 to the Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune Region, Pune complaining that in 7/12 extract, the area of Gat No.19 has been wrongly mentioned as 48 R and in fact it is 53 R and therefore, the records be rectified to that effect. It is alleged that this application was not signed by the Respondent No.1, yet, on this application, without any notice to any of the affected persons, the scheme was amended on 29.03.2003 and by an order dated 19.07.2003 the effect was given to the amended scheme. The Petitioners became aware of all this when they were directed by the Taluka Inspector of Land Records that the possession should be handed over of 10 R of land to the Respondent No.1. 3 The Petitioners, therefore, preferred the revision application and initially, the Government granted stay to the impugned order dated 19.07.2003. However, on 12.08.2009, this revision application has been dismissed. 4 The Petitioners have stated that it is very clear that the Respondents have no right, title and interest in this property. Further, the scheme was sought to be amended after lapse of nearly 27 years and that too without hearing any of the affected parties. Now, the Respondent No.3 is also claiming the right, title and interest in the property because the Taluka Inspector of Land Records directed the Petitioners to hand over the possession of 31 R from Survey No.35 to the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 stated to have claimed the rights from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. He also claims to have acquired the rights by a registered deed in his favour. *3* wp.41.10.918.sxw 5 When this matter came before me, I directed that the State Government be impleaded as a party. The State of Maharashtra has been, thus, impleaded and a copy of this Writ Petition has been duly served on the Government Pleader’s office. After amendment has been carried out on 26.07.2011 and the copy of this Writ Petition has been served, the matter was placed today. The learned AGP states that he has no instructions. 6 To my mind, the matter is pending in this Court for a considerable period and none benefits by an order of status-quo granted in this Writ Petition as early on 30.03.2010. The petition is pending in this Court for nearly one year and more. Further, a perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the State Government has failed to apply its mind as to how the applications at the instance of the Respondent No.1 could have been filed. If at all it was filed, whether, it was at his instance or the person, by whom it was made, should have verified it as a power of attorney and particularly stated about the transaction in relation to the lands. The Revisional Authority has merely perused the documents and on that basis recorded a finding that the Respondent No.1 (Bapu Rakhmaji Doke) has made this application. Though the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.2 are duly served with this Writ Petition, they are absent. How the Respondent No.3 (Pandurang Shirsath) to this Writ Petition appears before the Authority and in what circumstances, has also not been referred to, save and except stating that some portion of the land has been sold, but the reference is to one Sumanbai Damodar Shirsath. 7 For all these reasons, to my mind, when the powers are conferred in the Settlement Commissioner, whether the powers to modify the scheme could have been exercised after lapse of 27 years and that too at the instance of the Respondent No.1 are matters which require in depth *4* wp.41.10.918.sxw investigation and consideration. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside. The Application made in the name of the Respondent No.1 on 13.12.1985 shall now be placed before the Settlement Commissioner who alone is empowered to decide the issue and he shall pass a reasoned order after hearing not only the Petitioners and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, but all affected parties. The Settlement Commissioner shall pass a reasoned order uninfluenced by any of the observations made earlier including the order of the Minister which is set aside. In other words, the order dated 12.08.2009 impugned in this Writ Petition is set aside and stands substituted with the above directions. The Settlement Commissioner shall make an endeavour to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions of all parties are kept open. 8 The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)