(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9827 OF 2010 1. Shitabai w/o. Govindrao Haridas, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Pangaon, Taluka : Renapur, District : Latur. 2. Jagannath Govindrao Haridas, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Service and Agriculture, R/o. as above. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Bombay. 2. Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Record, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 4. The Superintendent of Land Records, Latur, District : Latur. (2) 5. The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Renapur, Taluka : Renapur, District : Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 5. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4TH MAY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.D. Gunale, for the petitioners, and learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent. 3. By the present petition, petitioners are challenging the (3) order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, dated 27-8-2008 and the communication dated 11-1-2010. The petitioners are also seeking a direction to the respondents to correct the area of the land of the petitioners from Survey No.31, Gut No. 1101 of village Pangaon (Taluka : Renapur, District : Latur) as 2 Hectares 13 R, instead of 1 Hectares 78 R. 4. Contention of Adv. Gunale is, the area under actual cultivation of petitioners even today is 2 Hectares and 13 R and it has been erroneously shown as 1 Hectare 17 R. According to him, though Consolidation Scheme has been implemented, the implementation has not resulted in reducing the actual holding of petitioners in any way. Because of less recording of area, the petitioners approached competent authorities and ultimately had filed revision also under Section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. However, that revision has also been disposed of without proper orders. He reiterates that it is only correction of area and no other adjacent owner is affected if such correction is carried out. 5. Learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde invites attention to impugned order dated 11-1-2010 at page 66, to urge that the petitioner has been rightly advised to file proper application (4) under Section 35 of the Act. He also relies upon reply affidavit filed before this court in defence. 6. In view of the contention of the petitioner, that his area in actual possession is 2 Hectares 13 R, and its less recording is not correct, I do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the controversy or other issues which may arise. The revenue records after implementation of Consolidation Scheme show area in possession of the petitioner to be 1 Hectare 78 R. If this area is less than the area in actual possession of the petitioner, the authorities can look into the same and pass appropriate orders. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) Petitioners are permitted to move fresh application, in accordance with law, with competent authority, within a period of four weeks from today. If such application is moved, the same shall be decided by that authority, after giving the petitioners opportunity of hearing, within a further period of eight weeks. (ii) The orders impugned in the present petition shall not in that event come in the way of those authorities. (5) 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9827