Bombay High Court
Manikrao Potanna Patil Through Gpa ... vs Chandar Satwaji Died Lrs Narayan ... on 10 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:30840
1 50-wp 582-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 582 OF 2019
Manikrao Potanna Patil
Age : 69 years, Occu. : Agri.
R/o. Bannali, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded
Through GPA Kishor Manikrao Patil
Age : 40 years, Occu. : Agri.
R/o. Bannali, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Chandar Satwaji (Deceased) by L.Rs.
1/1 Narayan s/o Chandar Chapale
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Agri.
R/o. Bannali, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded
2. Gangubai Santuka (Deceased) By L.Rs.
Maroti Moglaji Bunnod
Age : 53 years, Occu. : Agri.
R/o. : as above.
3. Ramu (Ramchandra) s/o Nagnath Patil
Age : 58 years, Occu. : Agri.
R/o. : as above.
4. Subhash Pundlik Patil
Age : 53 years, Occu. : Agri.
R/o. : as above.
5. Yashodabai Gangadhar Patil
Age : 59 years, Occu. : HH.
R/o. : Bidrali, Tq. Mudhol,
Dist. Adilabad (Andhra Pradesh)
1 of 6
2 50-wp 582-2019.odt
6. Dy. Director, Land Record
Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad
7. District Supdt.
Land Record, Nanded.
8. Dy. Supdt. Of Land Record,
Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded.
9. Hon'ble State Minister for Revenue
Mantralaya, Mumbai. .. Respondents
Mr. Vivek V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. U. B. Bilolikar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondent Nos. 6 to 9.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE : 10th NOVEMBER, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties taken up for final disposal.
3. A challenge in the writ petition is to the judgment and order
dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) in
appeal No. 2014/pra. Kra.139/J-7(A) Bhag-2 thereby the Hon'ble
Minister has committed a mistake while allowing the proceeding
filed by the respondent challenging the judgment and order dated
2 of 6
3 50-wp 582-2019.odt
12.03.2014 in appeal No. Consolidation/Appeal/S-R-879/2013
passed by the Deputy Director of Land Record, Aurangabad,
Region Aurangabad. The present petitioner aggrieved by the said
judgment and approached this Court. It is the case of the
petitioner that, the petitioner was having land to the extent of 17
Acres, 13 Guntha before implementation of the consolidation
scheme in village Bannali, Taluka Dharmabad, District Nanded. In
consolidation scheme in the year 1972 the area is wrongly shown
to be of 13 Acre and four Guntha. It is thus a mistake committed
while taking entries after implementation of the consolidation
scheme.
4. The learned advocate Mr. Bhavthankar for the petitioner has
taken this Court through the Khasra Pahani Patrak of the village
showing the possession of the petitioner over 17 Acres and 13
Guntha land, 7/12 extract for the year 1960-61 onwards showing
the same area till 1968-69. He submits that, it is only after
consolidation while preparing the record a mistake is committed
and in that view the petitioners approached the learned District
Superintendent of Land Records, Nanded. The learned District
Superintendent of Land Records wrongly rejected the appeal and
3 of 6
4 50-wp 582-2019.odt
appeal was filed before the Deputy Director who correctly passed
an order. There was no case made out before the Hon'ble Minister
to allow the proceeding filed by the respondents. He thus submits
that, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed
and set aside by restoring the judgment and order passed by the
learned Deputy Director, Land Records.
5. The learned advocate Mr. Bilolikar for respondent No. 2 on
the other hand vehemently argued that, the consolidation scheme
was implemented in the year 1972. The petitioner was very much
present when the scheme was implemented. Form No. 4 is signed
by the great grandfather of the present petitioner whose name
appears on the then record. For the first time in the year 2013 he
raised an objection to the entries and prayed for correction of the
record. He submits that, once the scheme is implemented, in view
of section 32 sub section 2 of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short "the
said Act"), if any entry is to be challenged it needs to be
challenged within 30 days from the date of such order. In the
present case, there is gap of 41 years in approaching the first
authority. He relies upon the judgment in the case of Dattu Appa
4 of 6
5 50-wp 582-2019.odt
Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2006 (6) All
MR 421. The Division Bench of this Court considered section 32
(1) of the said Act that, the variation in the scheme cannot be
justified after certain period. In the said case, it was sought to be
done after 27 years. In the present case, it is sought to be done
after 41 years.
6. This Court has heard the parties. From the record it does
appear that, the consolidation scheme was implemented by
considering the pot-hissa. So far as pot-hissa is concerned, it is
observed that, the petitioner was possessive only 13 Acre and four
Guntha of land and not more. Even after the implementation of
the scheme, the same area is shown of the petitioner. No any
variation in the area is observed by the Hon'ble Minister and
therefore, he dismissed the proceeding. Nothing is shown to this
Court to come to conclusion that the Hon'ble Minister has
committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order.
The Hon'ble Minister has rightly observed that the record after
consolidation is rightly made on the basis of form Nos. 4, 11 and
12. This Court does not find any mistake committed by the
Hon'ble Minister. On the contrary, it is seen that the learned
5 of 6
6 50-wp 582-2019.odt
Deputy Director, Aurangabad had committed a mistake and
therefore, the Hon'ble Minister allowed the proceeding filed
before him.
7. This Court thus finds that, there is no merit in the petition.
Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same
is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
8. Pending civil application, if any, also stands disposed of. No
order as to costs.
( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )
P.S.B.
6 of 6
