1 W.P.No.8849/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8849 OF 2011. Vasant S/o Limbaji Kare, Age 43 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Vasangaon, Tq. & Dist.Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Maharahstra 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, Dist.Latur. 5. The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Renapur, Tal. Renapur, Dist.Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.P.Urgunde, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. 2 W.P.No.8849/11 ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 24.11.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Mr.Urgunde, learned counsel submits that the petitioner had moved U/s 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 before the Deputy Director of Land Records,Aurangabad for correction of the record in respect of S.Nos.51 and 52 corresponding G.Nos.152 to 154. The said application is rejected only on the ground that it is not filed within 30 days. The learned counsel submits that Section 35 does not lay down any period of limitation and the Deputy Director has every authority to entertain the application 3 W.P.No.8849/11 on merits. Moreover, no reasons are given by the authority while rejecting the said application. The learned counsel further contends that initially the Deputy Director of Land Records was satisfied with the reasons given for the delay and so had referred the said application for measurement to the S.L.R. The learned counsel contends that this has not been taken into consideration. 4. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader supports the order and contends that no reasons are stated for such an inordinate delay. The said application is rightly rejected. The S.L.R. has opined the same thing. 5. The petitioner has tried to give reasons for filing the application late. The authority would consider the said application along with the reasons mentioned for filing the application subsequently and at late stage. If there is some error committed while forming guts in the Consolidation Scheme and land of no other party or no other land holder is being reduced 4 W.P.No.8849/11 then there is no impediment for the authority to make correction as per the actual area. 6. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The authority after giving opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties, shall decide the application of the petitioner including ground of delay on its own merits. 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp884911 5 W.P.No.8849/11