1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.816 OF 1998 (Suresh s/o Shankar Tayade and another vs. The Commissioner and Director of Land Records and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for the respondent nos.6 to 10. ------ CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 21, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this letters patent appeal, the appellants have impugned the judgment and order dated 3.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent nos. 6 to 10 has been allowed. The writ petition was directed against the order of the Settlement Commissioner by which the Settlement 2 Commissioner had refused to accept the request of the petitioners to put them in possession of field Gat No.116 under the scheme of consolidation of holdings. It appears that the scheme of consolidation of holdings under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”) was introduced in 1979. In the scheme, the parties had agreed to exchange their lands and accordingly Survey No.51/3 and 51/4, which were belonging to respondent nos. 6 to 10, were allotted to the appellants being Gat No.116, and Survey No.51/1-A of the appellants was allotted to the respondent nos. 6 to 10 being Gat No.120. It appears that after the scheme was implemented, the parties were not put in possession of the lands allotted to them in the scheme. In view thereof, respondent nos. 6 to 10 approached the concerned Authority for seeking possession of the land - Gat No.116. Shri Parsodkar, learned Counsel for appellants, submitted that there was long delay of 11 years on the part of the respondent nos. 6 to 10 in approaching the concerned Authority for seeking possession of the land allotted to their share and since the period of 11 years cannot be termed as reasonable, 3 their petition ought to have been rejected by the learned Single Judge. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and others (AIR 1969 SC 1297). At the outset, in our opinion, this judgment will not have application to the facts of the present case for more than one reason. The judgment relied by learned Counsel is arising from the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, whereas the instant proceedings arise out of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Under the said Act, the burden is on the Consolidation Officer to implement the scheme and bring it into force. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the submissions including the submission in respect of limitation, has considered the scheme of the Act, and in our opinion, has rightly held that it was the duty of the concerned Authority, namely, Consolidation Officer to put the parties in possession according to the scheme and to see that the scheme comes into force according to the provisions of the Act. 4 In the present case, the parties had agreed for exchanging their lands and accordingly the scheme was finalized and it was brought into force. However, the parties were not put in possession of the lands allotted to them in the scheme. The learned Single Judge has considered this aspect in paragraphs (8) and (9) of the impugned judgment. Moreover, on facts also, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that after the scheme was finalized, the appellants had obtained loan on the land allotted to their share, namely, Gat No.120. This further shows that the scheme was accepted by the appellants and, therefore, they had no right to continue in possession of the land, which was allotted to respondent nos. 6 to 10. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and the impugned judgment and order warrants no interference in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj