(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10779 OF 2010 Babaji s/o. Bhau Albhar, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Village Jawale, Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar, and 2 others. .. Petitioners. versus The District Superintendent of Land Records, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar, and another. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mrs. M.D. Thube (Mhase), Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has tried to show that appeal as filed under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is not maintainable. 2. Mr. D.R. Korde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1, has filed reply to urge that powers available to Settlement Commissioner under Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, are delegated to Deputy Inspector of Land Records. 3. Mrs. M.D. Thube (Mhase), learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2, states that appeal, as filed, is competent and only delay in filing it has been condoned. She also states that effort of respondent no.2 is to seek deletion of unnecessary names from his holding and not to deprive petitioners of their land. (3) 4. After hearing parties, I find that by condoning delay and in view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for respondent no.2, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. The controversy, whether appeal as filed is competent or not, can be looked into by the respondent no.1 before whom appeal is pending. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10779