JUDGMENT - VAGYANI B.B., J.:---Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, taken up for hearing forthwith. 3. The petitioners are agriculturists and residents of village Vaijala, Tq. Patoda, District Beed. The lands S. Nos. 7, 8 11 situated at village Vaijala were originally held by one Fakira who had five sons. One of the sons of Fakira namely Babasaheb died during the life time of Fakira. Fakira died in the year 1970. In the year 1986, there was partition of the lands between four sons of Fakira and the legal representatives of deceased Babasaheb. Vishwanath Fakira and Gopinath Fakira sold their shares in the lands to the petitioners Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. 1/5th share of Waman Fakira is devolved upon his son Limbraj i.e. petitioner No. 1. The 1/5th share is in possession of legal representatives of deceased Babasaheb and remaining 1/5th share is held by Narhari Fakira the uncle of petitioner No. 1. 4. The consolidation scheme was implemented in the village Vaijala in the year 1976. During implementation of the consolidation scheme no change in average of land was effected. It is alleged by the petitioners that as per the consolidation record, mutations were also effected in the land records and entries to that effect have been taken in the column of ownership as well of cultivation in the record of rights. 5. The respondent No. 3 has made certain suggestions in respect of corrections in the consolidation scheme. The respondent No. 3 suggested correction in the consolidation record in respect of consolidation Block Nos. 17, 21 and 51. According to the petitioners, the proposed correction is suggested by respondent No. 3 to enter the name of respondent No. 4 as owner of Block Nos. 17 and 21 and owner of Block No. 51 to the extent of half share. The petitioners gave reply to the notice of respondent No. 3 on 29-8-2003 (Exh. E). Without giving any hearing to the petitioners and without minding the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 accepted the suggestions made by respondent No. 3 and passed the impugned order dated 30-9-2003 whereby the corrections are made in consolidation scheme. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 30-9-2003, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 7. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 30-9-2003, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 7. In response to the notice, Shaikh Nizamuddin Mohammed Kasam, Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Patoda, District Beed filed affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have supported the impugned order. According to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, necessary corrections are made in the revenue record as per the provisions of law and on following necessary procedure. 8. In response to the notice, the respondent No. 4 filed his affidavit in reply and supported the impugned order. Alongwith affidavit in reply, the respondent No. 4 has placed on record the 7/12 extracts and Khasara Patrak. 9. I heard Shri C.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri K.G. Patil, learned A.G.P. for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri N.S. Jadhav, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have legal authority to make corrections in the consolidation scheme. 10. If there is any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the consolidation scheme by virtue of section 31-A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947), the Settlement Commissioner has authority to correct the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the consolidation scheme. No authority except the Settlement Commissioner has power to remove the defect arising on account of any clerical or arithmetical mistake including accidental slip or omission. Section 32 of the Act of 1947 imposes power on the Settlement Commissioner to make necessary corrections in consolidation scheme in respect of an error other than that referred to in section 31-A of the Act of 1947. In that regard, the Settlement Commissioner is required to publish a draft of such variation shall state every amendment proposed to be made in the scheme. Within one month from the date of publication of draft variation scheme, the persons so affected shall communicate in writing objection to such variation to the Settlement Commissioner. After receipt of the objections Settlement Commissioner is required to hold enquiry as deemed fit and make necessary variation with or without modification. Within one month from the date of publication of draft variation scheme, the persons so affected shall communicate in writing objection to such variation to the Settlement Commissioner. After receipt of the objections Settlement Commissioner is required to hold enquiry as deemed fit and make necessary variation with or without modification. If the scheme is varied under sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Act of 1947, a notification stating that the scheme has been varied, shall be published in Official Gazette and the scheme so varied shall be published in the prescribed manner in the village or village concerned. On plain reading of sections 31-A and 32 of the Act of 1947, it is clear that power of correction and variation is vested in the Settlement Commissioner and none else. Having examined the correctness of the impugned order in the light of sections 31-A and 32 of the Act of 1947, I am constrained to hold that the respondent No. 2 has no lawful authority to make corrections in the consolidation scheme. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have acted beyond their jurisdiction. The respondent No. 2, particularly acting on the suggestions made by respondent No. 3, passed impugned order which suffers from illegality. 11. In the case of (Gulabrao Kakade v. Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare)1, 2001(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 688, Division Bench of this Court has elaborately considered the scope of jurisdiction of Settlement Commissioner under section 32 of the Act of 1947. There is no time limit prescribed under section 32(1) of the Act of 1947 for the Settlement Commissioner to vary the scheme. In the said case, the consolidation scheme was finalised in the year 1973 and the proceedings for correction of the scheme was initiated in the year 1988. This Court held that exercise of powers by Settlement Commissioner for variation of scheme which has come into force in the year 1973 by initiating proceedings in the year 1988, cannot be said to be within a reasonable time. 12. The Settlement Commissioner has power of correction as well as to make suitable variation in the scheme after following due procedure laid down in the Act of 1947. In the instant case, the respondent No. 4 did not move the Settlement Commissioner for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in consolidation scheme. 12. The Settlement Commissioner has power of correction as well as to make suitable variation in the scheme after following due procedure laid down in the Act of 1947. In the instant case, the respondent No. 4 did not move the Settlement Commissioner for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in consolidation scheme. The respondent No. 4 has also not moved the Settlement Commissioner for suitable variation in the scheme on account of an error other than that referred to in section 31-A of the Act of 1947. The respondent No. 4 moved the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2, without any lawful authority, has made corrections in the record and varied the scheme. The action of the respondent No. 2 is, therefore, not only arbitrary but illegal. 13. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30th September, 2003 is quashed and set aside. It is open for the respondent No. 4 to exhaust appropriate remedy, if available in law. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed. -----