1 W.P. 8683.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8683 OF 2011 1. Ashok S/o Gunaji Bobade Age : 31 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Mauje Surwadi, Sajja Fukatgaon, Tq. Purna, Dist. : Parbhani. 2. Prabhavati W/o Manik Tathe Age : 26 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Mauje Surwadi, Sajja Fukatgaon, Tq. Purna, Dist. : Parbhani. ..... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Dy. Director of Land Records, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Superintendent, Office of Land Records, Parbhani. 4. The Deputy Superintendent Land Records, Purna, Dist. Parbhani. 2 W.P. 8683.2011 - [ J ] 5. The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Purna, Dist. Parbhani. 6. The Consolidation Officer, Land Records, Parbhani. ..... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.K.Chavan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14/12/2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The Petition was filed by the mother of the petitioners before the Settlement Commissioner as required under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioners died on 25/10/1987. The Dy. Director of Land Records rejected the said proceedings on the ground that it is not filed within thirty ( 30 ) days. The said order is assailed by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition. 3 W.P. 8683.2011 - [ J ] 3. Mr. Chavan, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. The petitioners could have satisfied the authority about the reasons for delay. Even a separate application could have been filed by the petitioners. But, the authority on its own, without calling upon the petitioners, passed the impugned order. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners deserve to be given an opportunity to put forth their case before the authority. 4. Mr. R.P.Phatake, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader supports the order and submits that an objection U/s 32 of the said Act has to be filed within thirty ( 30 ) days. The authority has rightly passed the order. 5. It appears that the said order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the authority was not satisfied about the maintainability of the petition, it could have called upon the petitioners to make submissions on the same. But, the authority, suo motu, simply on the ground that it is not filed within thirty ( 30 ) days, has disposed of the proceedings. 6. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioners may file an application for condonation of delay along with the proceedings and the authority shall consider the said 4 W.P. 8683.2011 - [ J ] application for condonation of delay on its own merits including that of the maintainability after hearing the petitioners. 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 8683.2011 - [ J ]