1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3622 OF 2008 Dhondiba s/o Raoji Ghumbre Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. G.K. Thigle, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the State. Mr. A.N. Nagargoje & Mr. D.M. Mane, Advocate for respondent no. 3. ===== CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 2nd December, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Application tendered by the petitioner seeking amendment to the scheme prepared under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 came to be rejected by the competent authority. One of the grounds on which the application came to be rejected, as stated in affidavit in reply, is that the petitioner has approached the authority after 32 years of the finalisation of the scheme. 2 Learned counsel for the respondent brings to my notice reported judgment in the matter of Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade vs. Nivruti krishna 2 Bhilare reported in 2001(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 688 wherein it has been laid down that . "Even if there is no limitation for variation of the scheme, it is to be done within reasonable time. What is reasonable time would depend on facts of each case. Ordinarily, exercise of such powers after 3 years from finalisation of the scheme may not be justified." . In this view of the matter, refusal to exercise jurisdiction by the authority on application tendered by the petitioner after lapse of 32 years cannot be said to be unjustified. Petition therefore stands rejected. 3 If it is permissible for the petitioner in accordance with provisions of the law to avail any other remedy, he may do so. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* dyb/wp3622.08.odt