Bombay High Court
Suresh Keshav Soman vs Shripati Tatoba Kamble on 14 August, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:33137
67 Wp-3300-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3300 OF 2021
Suresh Keshav Soman ...Petitioner.
Versus
Shripati Tatoba Kamble and Others. ...Respondents.
------------
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vinayak R.Kumbhar,
Rajendra B. Khaire, Aniket S. Phapale i/b A. N. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tanu Bhatia, AGP for the Respondent No. 3 and 4.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : August 14, 2024.
P. C. :
1. Heard.
2. By this petition, challenge is to the orders dated 20 th February
2020 and 2nd March 2021 passed by the District Superintendent of Land
Records disposing the Petitioner's application filed under Section 36 of
the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act [for short "the Consolidation Act"].
3. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner would submit that the Additional District Judge in Regular
Civil Appeal No.359 of 1992 vide judgment and order dated 19 th August
2002 had declared that the competent authority appointed under the
Patil-SR 1 of 3
67 Wp-3300-2021.doc
Consolidation Act shall rectify the record in respect of formation of
Block Nos. 2750, 2751 and 2752 and thereby rectify the record by re-
allotting the subject land to the Respondents, i.e., the Petitioners
herein by merging the same in Block No. 2752. He submits that despite
the judgment of the District Court, the Respondent No.4 had rejected
the application filed under Section 36 of the Consolidation Act without
issuing notice to any of the parties. He therefore seeks remand of the
matter.
4. Learned AGP would seek time to take instructions.
5. The Respondent No. 4 has held that while implementing the said
order, the provisions of Consolidation Act would come in the way and
thus there cannot be any rectification. The Respondent No.4 therefore
filed the application of Petitioner. Considering the position that as no
notice was issued to the parties, the necessary submissions qua
judgment and order of 19th August 2002 and the inability expressed by
the Respondent No. 4 to implement the judgment and order was not
placed for consideration of Respondent No.4 before passing the
impugned order. In my opinion, the matter is required to be remanded
to the Respondent No. 4 to be considered afresh after giving
opportunity of being heard to all the parties.
6. In the light of above, the impugned orders dated 20 th February
2020 and 2nd March 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The
Patil-SR 2 of 3
67 Wp-3300-2021.doc
application filed under Section 36 of the Consolidation Act on 10 th April
2017 is restored to the file of Respondent No. 4.
7. As the matter is remitted to the Respondent No.4 to be
considered afresh for the reason that no opportunity was given to any
of the parties, no notice has been issued to private Respondents.
8. As the matter is remanded, the Respondent No. 4 is requested to
decide the same expeditiously and in any event within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Petition is disposed of in above terms.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Patil-SR 3 of 3
