1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7164 OF 2005. Baburao S/o Gunaji Karve died through L.Rs. (i) Radhakishan S/o Baburao Karve, Age 29 years, Occ.Agril., R/o village Salunkwadi, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist.Beed. (ii) Malanbai W/o Baburao Karve, Age 65 years, Occ.Household, R/o village Salunkwadi, Tq.Ambejogai, Dist.Beed. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 3. The Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The District Superintendent, Land Records,Beed. 5. The Taluka Inspector of Land Reforms, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 6. Narhari S/o Tatya Karve, Age 75 years,Occ.Agriculture, 2 R/o Village Salunkwadi, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. (In view of Hon'ble Court's order dt.28.7.2009, W.P. stands dismissed as against Respondent No.6) 7. Gangadhar S/o Narhari Karve, Age 35 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Village Salunkwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 8. Indrashekhar S/o Baburao Karve, Age 40 years, Occ.Service, R/o village Salunkwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 9. Subhash S/o Tukaram Mule, Age 55 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o village Salunkwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ... Respondents. ... Mrs,M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.H.Borade, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent Nos.7 to 9. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 15.01.2010. PER COURT 1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioner claims to be owner of land Gat No.101 admeasuring 4 hectares 83 Ares 3 situated at village Salunkwadi under Ambajogai Tahsil. He was owner of lands bearing S.No.60 and S.No.70 which had been consolidated in order to formulate Gat No.101. The Respondent No.8 moved an application for rectification of the scheme alleging that a part of S.No.71 was wrongly included in Gat No.101 during preparation of the consolidation scheme. The Settlement Commissioner directed inquiry into the complaint and came to the conclusion that a part of Gat No. 101 to the extent of 34 Ares was wrongly included during formation of the said block while implementing the consolidation scheme in the year 1975. Consequently, variation in the scheme U/s 32 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, was ordered and a notification dated 27.1.2005 was accordingly issued by the Deputy Director of Land Records. The petitioner challenges the variation of the scheme by the competent authority mainly on the ground that the scheme could not have been legally valid after lapse of considerable years. He also submits that the variation was carried out against the norms provided U/s 32 of the 4 Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. 3. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 4. The petitioner filed suit (RCS No. 126/2001) for perpetual injunction against the Respondent Nos.6 to 9. The petitioner alleged that they attempted to cause unlawful obstruction in his lawful possession of land Gat No.101. It was after filing of the suit and clamping of temporary injunction that the said defendants submitted an application for variation of the scheme itself. The application was submitted in the year 2002. The scheme was admittedly finalised on 10.1.1975. The petitioner had objected the process of variation of the scheme. 5. It may be noticed that the impugned notification does not show as to how the variation was justified. Though the petitioner alleges that he had objected the variation process, yet, the impugned notification reveals 5 that not a single objection petition was received during the relevant period after publication of the notice U/s 32(1). The procedure required to be followed U/s 32(1) shows that the Settlement Commissioner is under obligation to publish a draft of such variation in the prescribed manner. The draft variation also is required to be clear and shall contain the proposed amendment to be made. The reply affidavit does not show in what manner the draft notification was published. The copy of draft notification is also not placed on record. The draft notification along with a notice calling upon objections, if any, is required to be published in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 read with relevant Rules. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in "Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade (Smt.) since deceased by his heirs and legal representatives Vs. Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare and others" 2001 (supp.) Bom.C.R. 688, held that though there is no limitation for variation of the scheme, yet, it has to be done within a reasonable time. It is observed that 6 ordinarily exercise of such power after three (3) years from finalisation of the scheme may not be justified. In the given case, the scheme was varied after 15 years and, therefore, it was held that the variation was grossly unjustified. So also, same view is expressed in "Dattu Appa Patil and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" 2006(6) Bom.C.R.246. Needless to say, the Division Bench of this Court consistently held that the application for variation should be considered if it is within reasonable time and the exercise of power U/s 32 after long many years may not be justified. No special reasons are shown to exercise such powers after about 27 years. 7. Mr.Deshmukh, learned advocate would submit that the Respondent Nos.6 to 9 have lost a part of their land without any compensation and, therefore, prima facie the variation could be justified. The impugned notification does not show that there was no compensation paid or no alternative land was given to the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. In absence of any such reason recorded 7 in the impugned notification, it would be improper to express any final opinion as regards the omission to grant any compensation or necessity to grant any compensation to the Respondent Nos.6 to 9. They will be at liberty, however, to stake their claim for compensation by way of counter claim in the Civil suit which is filed against them. Their counter claim may be considered by the Civil Court. Alternatively they are also at liberty to file separate suit or any proceedings in this context. 8. Be that may as it is, the variation in the scheme U/s 32 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 is quite unjustified and improper. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned notification is quashed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp726405