Bombay High Court
Smt. Krishanabai Bhausaheb Gore And ... vs State Of Maharashtra , Through The ... on 18 September, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:39001
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
Arun Sankpal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12414 OF 2017
1. Krishanabai Bhausaheb Gore
Age: 66 years, Occ: Agriculture
2. Baban Alias Baba Bhausaheb Gore
Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
3. Sopan Bhausaheb Gore,
Age: 52 Years, Occ: Agriculture
4. Vasant Bhausaheb Gore,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture
5. Ganesh Bhausaheb Gore,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture
6. Santosh Bhausaheb Gore,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture
All R/o. Gore Vasti, Wagholi,
Tal- Haveli, Dist. Pune. ..Petitioners
Versus
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
1. State of Maharashtra through
Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
The Secretary,
SANKPAL
Date: 2025.09.18
21:39:57 +0530
Revenue and Rehabilitation Dept
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director,
Land Records, New Administrative
Building, Opp. Council Hall,
Pune 411 001.
3. The District Superintendent,
Land Records, Pune Collectors' Office Campus,
Pune 411 001.
1/24
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:55:16 :::
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
4. The Tahsildar,
Haveli, Dist Pune,
5. Taluka Inspector of Land Records,
Haveli, Having Office at Pune
Collector's Office Campus,
Pune - 411 001.
6. Baban Babu Gore
(Since deceased through his legal heirs)
6(a) Pandurang Baban Gore,
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture
6(b) Vilas Baban Gore,
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture
6(c) Sudam Baban Gore,
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture
6(d) Sharad Baban Gore,
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture
6(e) Balu Baban Gore,
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture
7. Vinayak Babu Gore
(Since deceased through his legal legal heirs)
[7(a) Tarabai Vinayak Gore,
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture]
7(b) Chandrakant Vinayak Gore,
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture
R/o. Gore Vasti, Wagholi,
Tal - Haveli, Dist - Pune.
7(c) Kalpana Vishnu Borade
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Sonsangvi, Tal - Shirur,
Dist - Pune.
2/24
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:55:16 :::
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
7(d) Aruna Hiraman Makhar
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture ...Respondents
R/o Arangaon, Tal - Dound,
Dist Pune.
Mr. Rajaram V Bansode, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar, for Respondent Nos. 6(a) to 6(e) and 7(a) and
7(b).
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 17th JULY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 30 th November
2011 passed by the Minister (Revenue) in Revision Application No.
3407/830, whereby the Revision Application preferred by the
Petitioners against an order passed by the Superintendent, Land
Records, Pune on 19th May 2003, correcting the Consolidation Scheme
in exercise of the power under Section 31A of the Maharashtra
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947
("the Act, 1947") came to be dismissed affirming the order passed by
the Deputy Superintendent, Land Records and a further order dated 10 th
October 2016, whereby the Review Application preferred by the
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
Petitioners being ,d=h&3414@318@iz-dza-175@t&5, came to be
dismissed.
3. The background facts leading to this Petition can be stated in
brief as under:
3.1 Ganpati Gyanba Gore, the common ancester of the
Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7(d), was the original
holder of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 334 situated at
Mouje Wagholi, District Pune. Survey No. 334 was divided into
two parts, i.e., Survey No. 334/1A admeasuring 1H and 95.8 R (4
Acres and 33.5 Gunthas), and survey No. 334/1B admeasuring
1H 95.8 R (4 Acres 33.5 Gunthas).
3.2 In the Consolidation Scheme which was implemented at
Mouje Wagholi in the year 1973, as per the measurement phalani
Bara was prepared and the land bearing original Survey No. 334
was trifurcated into three Survey Number, i.e., i) Survey No.
334/1A+334/1B/1 which was converted into Gat No. 2518
admeasuring 76 R, ii) Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/2 which was
converted into Gat No. 2519 admeasuring 2H 33R and, iii)
Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/3 which was converted into Gat No.
2517 admeasuring 82 R.
3.3 Land bearing Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/1, Gat No.
2518 admeasuring 76 R was mutated in the name of Vinayak
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
Babu Gore, the deceased-Respondent No. 7 and the predecessor-
in-title of Respondent Nos. 7(a) to 7(d). Land bearing Survey No.
334/1A+334/1B/2, Gat No. 2519 admeasuring 2 H 33 R was
mutated in the name of Tukaram Ganpati Gore, the predecessor-
in-title of the Petitioners. And land bearing Survey No.
334/1A+334/1B/3, Gat No. 2517, was mutated in the name of
Baban Babu Gore, the deceased Respondent No. 6 and
predecessor-in-title of the Respondent Nos. 6(a) to 6(e).
3.4 The Petitioners claim the Petitioners and the Respondents
have been cultivating their respective portions of the subject land
in accordance with the settlement of the Consolidation Scheme.
The Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 or any of their respective successor-
in-interest had never raised any objection regarding the area of
their respective lands as shown in the Consolidation Scheme. In
fact Baban Gore had sold the land bearing Gat No. 2517
admeasuring 82 R under a registered Sale Deed in the year 1986
to Badluram Ramnath Agarwal.
3.5. The Petitioners claim after a lapse of more than 27 years of
the settlement of the Consolidation Scheme, Baban Gore filed an
Application on 22nd August 2000 for the correction of the area in
the above-referred Survey Numbers before the Tahsildar, Haveli.
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
The latter directed the deceased-Respondent No. 6, Baban Gore,
to approach the authorities, under the Act, 1947.
3.6 Thereupon Pandurang Gore (R6(a)) filed an Application
before the District Superintendent, Land Records (R3)
purportedly under Section 31A of the Act of 1947 seeking
correction in the area of the land settled under Consolidation
Scheme.
3.7 The Petitioners allege, without providing an effective
opportunity of hearing the Respondent No. 3 professed to correct
the area and by an order dated 19 th May 2003 published a draft
of the correction.
3.8 On account of the said unlawful correction in the area of
the respective Survey Numbers, sans any lawful authority, the
area of the land bearing Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/2 which
was mutated in the name of Tukaram Gore, the predecessor-in-
title of the Petitioners under the Consolidation Scheme, came to
be reduced to 82 R from 2 H 33 R and correspondingly the area
of Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/3 settled under the
Consolidation Scheme was increased from from 82 R to 2 H 33 R.
Eventually, the order dated 19th May 2003 passed by the
Respondent No. 3 approving the corrections in the area of the
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
lands settled under the Consolidation Scheme was given effect to
vide Mutation Entry No. 769 certified on 5th July 2003.
3.9 Being aggrieved the Petitioners preferred a Revision
Application before the State Government. From the record, it
transpired that the Revision Application was heard by the then
Minister (Revenue) and closed for orders. Though, the Revenue
Minister had passed the judgment on 25th August 2009, the same
was not released. Thereupon, the successor Minister (Revenue)
again heard the Revision Application afresh, after providing an
opportunity of hearing to the parties and by the impugned order
dismissed the Revision Application opining inter alia that the
defect in the Consolidation Scheme was on account of a clerical
error in mentioning the incorrect area in the Gunakar Book
while, settling the Consolidation Scheme. Thus, the
Superintendent, Land Records was within his right in correcting
the inadvertent error in mentioning the area qua the respective
Survey Numbers.
3.10 The Petitioners preferred an Application to review the
aforesaid order. By the impugned order dated 10 th October 2016,
the Review Application also came to be dismissed.
4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have invoked the writ
jurisdiction.
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
5. I have heard Mr. Rajaram Bansode, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel for Respondent
Nos. 6(a) to 6(e) and 7(a) and 7(b) and Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, the
learned AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. With the assistance of the
learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the material on
record.
6. Mr. Bansode, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, would urge
that the orders impugned in this Petition suffer from manifest infirmity.
The correction in the Consolidation Scheme was clearly beyond the
scope of the provisions contained in Section 31A of the Act of 1947. The
order dated 19th May 2003, by which the Respondent No.3 professed to
correct the area of the subject lands, did not fall within the ambit of
clerical or arithmetical mistake or accidental error.
7. By the impugned order the Consolidation Scheme has been
substantially altered. Such a power neither vests in the Respondent No.
3 nor the Respondent No. 3 could have resorted to exercise the said
power after a lapse of more than 30 years of the coming into force of
the Consolidation Scheme. Mr. Bandose, would thus urge that the
impugned order suffers from the vice of the flagrant transgression of the
limits of the jurisdiction.
8. Mr. Bansode would further urge that even otherwise the requisite
procedure for carrying out the corrections in the Consolidation Scheme
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
was not followed. The Petitioners were not given an effective
opportunity of hearing. The documents were completely misconstrued.
A statement giving consent to the correction was falsely attributed to
Ganesh Gore (P5),
9. Mr. Bansode would further urge that, the Respondents have, in
fact, sold the lands which were shown against their names in the
Consolidation Scheme. The Respondents have no subsisting right, title
and interest in the subject land. Yet, the Respondents contested the
proceeding before the Minister (Revenue). The latter was also in error
in dismissing the Revision Application though the order passed by the
Respondent No. 3 was clearly in excess of latter's power.
10. To buttress the submission that a Consolidation Scheme cannot
be corrected after a lapse of more than 30 years, Mr Bansode placed
reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dattu Appa
Patil Since Deceased by LRs Ananda Dattu Patil and Ors Vs State of
Maharashtra and Ors,1 and the judgments of learned Single Judges of
this Court, in the cases of Ganpati Dadu Mali since deceased through
LRs Rakhmabai Ganpati Mali and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors 2
and Bapu Gunda Mirje & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors3
1 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 393.
2 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 341.
3 Writ Petition No. 7586 of 2013, decided on 27th February, 2014.
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
11. In opposition to this, Mr. Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel for
Respondent Nos. 6(a) to 6(e) and 7(a) and 7(b), supported the
impugned orders. It was urged that the Superintendent, Land Records
was fully justified in exercising the powers under Section 31A of the Act
of 1947, as the area shown in the Consolidation Scheme against Survey
No. 334/1A+334/1B/2 and 334/1A+334/1B/3 was on account of a
clerical error. The Superintendent, Land Records had followed the
procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules before correcting the
clerical error in the Scheme.
12. Mr. Kshirsagar further submitted that there is no material to
indicate that the original Scheme, under which a larger area was
allotted to Tukaram Ganpati Gore, the predecessor-in-title of the
Petitioners, was enforced in the manner ordained by Section 21 of the
Act of 1947. Neither a certificate of transfer of the additional land was
issued nor any compensation was paid to the persons whose lands came
to be transferred to Tukaram Ganpati Gore nor those persons were
evicted from the area of land which was allegedly allotted to Tukaram
Ganpati Gore. In the absence of the documents to evidence the
enforcement of the Scheme qua the area which was allegedly allotted to
Tukaram Ganpati Gore, mere entry of an incorrect area in the Record of
Rights pursuant to the Consolidation Scheme is of no avail.. In a
situation of this nature, the recourse to the provisions contained in
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
Section 31A of the Act 1947 is perfectly in order, submitted Mr.
Kshirsagar. To bolster up this submission, Mr. Kshirsagar placed reliance
on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Tulsiram S/o Shivram Dhondkar & Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra &
Ors4
13. Mr. Kshirsagar would further urge that the contention of the
Petitioners that the Respondents filed Application for correction in the
Consolidation Scheme after 27 years is factually incorrect since in the
year 1985 itself the deceased-Respondent No. 6 had moved the
Authorities for correction in the area of the Survey No. 334/1A+1B/3
corresponding to Gat No. 2517.
14. Attention of the Court was invited to a notice dated 10 th
December 1991 (Annexure-4 to the Affidavit in Reply on behalf of
Pandurang Baban Gore (R6(a)) issued by the Assistant Consolidation
Officer, Pune for hearing of the complaint regarding the discrepancy in
the area. Attention of the Court was also invited to the statements of the
Petitioners and the Respondents recorded during the course of the
enquiry into the said complaint which demonstrate that even the
Petitioners had conceded that the area was incorrectly recorded.
15. In these circumstances, and especially having regard to the clear
inadvertent clerical error in mentioning the area of the respective
4 Writ Petition No. 8737 of 2021 decided on 12 th October 2023
(Aurangabad Bench)
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
portions of land under the Consolidation Scheme, the impugned order
does not warrant any interference in exercise of the supervisory
jurisdiction, urged Mr. Kshirsagar.
16. Ms. Solunke, the learned AGP, also supported the impugned
order. It was submitted that the District Superintendent of Land Records
has correctly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 31A of the Act of
1947. The Revisional Authority was justified in declining to interfere
with the exercise of the powers by the Superintendent, Land Records.
17. To start with it may be apposite to have a brief resume of the
relevant provisions of the Act of 1947.
18. Under Section 2(2) of the Act of 1947, "Consolidation of
holdings" means the amalgamation and where necessary the
redistribution of holdings or portions of holdings in any village, mahal
or taluka or any part thereof so as to reduce the number of plots in
holdings.
19. Chapter III of the Act of 1947 contains a fasciculus of provisions
under the heading, " Procedure for Consolidation". Section 15 and 15A
deal with declaration of intention to make a Scheme for Consolidation
of holdings, preparation of the Scheme and the principles to be followed
in its preparation. Under Section 16, if under the Scheme a holder is
allotted a holding of less market value than that of his original holding,
he is entitled to compensation. Conversely, the holder, to whom a
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
holding of greater market value than that of his original holding, is
allotted, is liable to pay compensation. Section 19 provides for
publication of draft scheme and amended draft scheme in the
prescribed manner with the object of providing an opportunity to the
affected persons to raise objections in relation to the draft scheme.
20. Section 20 provides for confirmation of draft scheme or amended
draft scheme of consolidation by the Settlement Commissioner. Section
21 provides for enforcement of scheme. Under Section 22 as soon as the
persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act of 1947, have
entered into possession of the holdings respectively allotted to them, the
scheme shall be deemed to have come into force. Section 24 obligates
the Consolidation Officer to issue certificate to every owner to whom a
holding is allotted under Sub-section (6) of Section 21. The
Consolidation Officer is further enjoined to cause to be prepared a new
Record of Rights in respect of holding so transferred.
21. Under Section 31A of the Act of 1947, with which we are
primarily concerned, the Settlement Officer has the authority to correct
the clerical or arithmetical mistakes or error arising in the Consolidation
Scheme from any accidental slip or omission. No Authority except the
Settlement Commissioner has the power to remove the defect arising on
account of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or error on account of any
accidental slip or omission.
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
22. Under Section 32, the Settlement Commissioner is empowered to
vary the scheme after publishing the draft of variation, in the prescribed
manner, receiving objections thereto and making an appropriate enquiry
in that regard, if it appears to the Settlement Commissioner that the
Scheme is defective on account of an error other than clerical or
arithmetical mistakes, which he is otherwise empowered to correct
under Section 31A, the irregularity or informality.
23. Evidently neither under Section 31A nor Section 32, any time
limit is prescribed for the Settlement Commissioner to vary the scheme.
Nonetheless, it does not imply that the Settlement Commissioner has
unfettered authority to correct or vary the scheme. It is well-recognized
that even in the absence of statutory prescription of time-limit, the
power can only be exercised within a reasonable period. In the very
nature of things, the reasonability of the period for exercise of the
power would hinge upon the attendant facts and circumstances of the
case.
24. A distinction is also required to be drawn in the cases where the
Settlement Commissioner exercises the power under Section 31A;
which is essentially to correct the record, and the cases under Section
32 of the Act of 1947. With regard to the exercise of power under
Section 32 of the Act of 1947, this Court has consistently held that the
Settlement Commissioner has no unbridled authority to vary the
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
scheme at any time. This Court has repetitively ruled that such power,
ordinarily, ought to be exercised within a period of three years. In the
absence of any special or compelling circumstances the exercise of the
power under Section 32 of the Act of 1947, after an inordinately long
period cannot be countenanced as it entails the undesirable
consequences of unsettling of the settled claims.
25. The judgments on which reliance was placed by the Mr. Bansode
deal with the exercise of the power by the Settlement Commissioner
under Section 32 of the Act of 1947. In the case of Dattu Appa Patil
(Supra), the Division Bench of this Court after following an earlier
judgment in the case of Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade since deceased by
L.Rs and Ors Vs Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare & Ors 5 enunciated that when
the Consolidation Scheme was settled in the year 1962, the lands were
exchanged by the consent of the parties, the possession receipts were
executed and the changes were entered in the Revenue Records, and
the parties continued to cultivate their respective allotted lands, the
Settlement Commissioner were clearly in error in exercising his power
under Section 32(1) of the Act of 1947 of effecting variations in the
Scheme. The Application for variation was made nearly 27 years after
the settlement of the Scheme. The period of 27 years can certainly not
be called reasonable period.
5 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 31.
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
26. In the case of Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade(Supra), the Division
Bench of this Court had enunciated the position in law, inter alia, as
under.
"6. The power given to the Settlement
Commissioner for variation of the scheme is on
account of an error other than that referred to in
section 31A, irregularity or informality after following
the procedure prescribed. Though there is no time
limit prescribed under Section 32(1) for the
Settlement Commissioner to vary the scheme which
has come into force, but obviously even in the absence
of any period prescribed under section 32, the said
power can only be exercised within reasonable period
in any case. What would be the reasonable period for
exercise of power under Section 32(1) by the
Settlement Commissioner may depend on facts and
circumstances of each case and we do not intend to lay
down any specific period for exercise of that power by
Settlement Commissioner but ordinarily exercise of
such power after three years of finalisation of scheme
under section 22 may not be Justified. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the exercise of
power 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 reasonable time. The fact is and that is not
disputed that the earlier scheme was finalised in the
year 1973 under the Act of 1947 to the knowledge of
all the parties concerned. Nobody was aggrieved by
the said scheme finalised under the Act of 1947 and
the scheme came into force under section 22. The said
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
scheme which had been finalised in accordance with
law and came into force and continued to be in force,
could not have been unsettled by initiating the
proceedings for variation under section 32 on the
purported ground of error, irregularity or informality
after a lapse of about 15 years. Thus, the exercise of
power by Settlement Commissioner under section 32
for variation of the scheme in the facts and
circumstances of the present case is grossly
unjustified."
27. The decisions in the case of Ganpati Dadu Mali (Supra) and
Bapu Gunda Mirje (Supra) reiterate the aforesaid position in law.
28. As noted above, there is a significant difference in the scope of
the provisions contained in Section 31A and 32 of the Act, 1947. The
pivotal question, that comes to the fore in the instant case is, whether
the exercise of power under Section 31A of the Act of 1947 by the
District Superintendent, Land Records, was justified? For an answer, it
has to be seen whether the exercise of power has the underpinning of
correction of record on account of an inadvertent or clerical error or the
trappings of the variation of the Scheme other than an inadvertent or
clerical error, envisaged by Section 32 of the Act of 1947.
29. The order dated 19th May 2003 publishing the draft of the
correction makes the position abundantly clear. It explicitly records that
there was a clerical error in recording the area in the Consolidation
Scheme with regard to the account no. 256 and 118 at page 845 of the
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
Notification published on 20th March 1973. The report submitted to the
Minister (Revenue) by the Taluka Inspector of Land Records at the time
of the hearing of the Revision Application also explicitly reveals that at
the time of Consolidation of the holdings, original Survey Nos. 334/1
and 334/2 were measured according to actual cultivation. Those Survey
Numbers were sub-divided. Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/2 was
converted into Gat No. 2519 and Survey No.334/1A+334/1B/3, which
was converted into Gat No. 2517. Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/2, i.e.,
Gat No. 2519 was allotted to Tukaram Gore (the predecessor-in-title of
the Petitioners) and Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/3, i.e. Gat No. 2517
was allotted to Baban Gore, the deceased-Respondent No. 6.
30. In fact Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/3 was a larger holding and
Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/2 was a smaller holding. Yet,
inadvertently, in the Gunakar Book the area of the respective Survey
Numbers got interchanged. Despite Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/2
having a smaller holding, an area of 2 H 33 R was shown against the
said Survey Number and an area of 82 R only was shown against the
Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/3 though it had a larger holding.
31. The statements of the concerned land-holders and panchas were
recorded. The record and the statements of the parties and witnesses
indicate that there was defect in the Scheme in the matter of the area of
the land bearing Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/2 (Gat No. 2519) and
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
Survey No. 334/1A+334/1B/3 (Gat No. 2517) and, thus, it was
required to be corrected under Section 31A of the Act of 1947. Copy of
the Gunakar Book (page 46) of the Petition clearly indicates that an area
of 82 R was only was shown against the name of Baban Gore and, in
contrast, an area of 2 H 33 R was shown against the name of Tukaram
Gore.
32. In fact, when the original Survey No. 334 was sub-divided an
area admeasuring 4 Acres 33.5 Gunthas, i.e., 1 H 95.8 R was shown
against Survey No. 334/1A and 334/1B. On 5th July 1967, Tukaram
Gore, the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner, and his son Dnyanoba
had sold 1/2 share of their land to Shantaram Shinde. That led to
further division of Survey No. 334/1B and reduction in holdings of
Tukaram Gore to 2 Acres and 16.5 Gunthas of land only. Yet, in the
Consolidation Scheme an area admeasuring 2 H 33 R was shown
against Survey No. 334/1A + Survey No. 334/1B/2, i.e. Gat No. 2519.
33. Whether the allotment of aforesaid larger area was on account of
Consolidation of holdings, can be legitimately tested by ascertaining
whether the scheme was implemented in the manner envisaged by the
provisions of the Act of 1947. It does not appear that a certificate of
transfer of land under Section 24 of the Act of 1947 was issued by the
Consolidation Officer to Tukaram Gore certifying that the additional
holding had been transferred to Tukaram Gore, in pursuance of the said
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
scheme. Neither any provision was made in the Scheme for the payment
of compensation under Section 16 of the Act, 1947. Nor does it appear
that any steps were taken to evict the deceased-Respondent No. 6 from
the portion of the land which was allegedly additionally allotted to
Tukaram Gore in the Scheme. Thus, the entries in Gunakar Book
regarding the area and the consequent Mutation Entries in the Record
of Rights of the respective lands appeared to be paper entries.
34. The reliance placed by Mr Kshirsagar on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Tulsiram Shivram Dhondkar (Supra) appears to be
well-founded. The observations in paragraph 36 to 42 are material and
hence extracted below.
"36. Thus the authority on examination of relevant record
has rendered a finding that the land purchased by the
petitioners is far less than what they are shown to be entitled
to under the consolidation scheme. The excess lands are not
put in possession of the petitioners in compliance of the
procedure under Section 21 of the Act. It is also relevant to
note that to put the petitioners in possession of the additional
as shown in the confirmed scheme, the respondents owners of
land, who were in possession ought to have been evicted from
the land before handing over the possession of the excess land.
In absence of physical eviction of the respondents owners of
the land, it cannot be said that the petitioners are put in
possession of the excess land. There is no evidence of eviction
of respondents - owners from the excess land. Mere mutation
entry on the basis of confirmed scheme does not confer right
to the petitioners on the excess land which is not put in
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
possession in enforcement of the scheme under Section 21 of
the Act.
37. It is to be noticed that under Section 16 of the Act
whenever a person is granted land / holding of the larger
value under the consolidation scheme then the person who
looses the land has to be compensated by computing
compensation by applying the principles of the Land
Acquisition Act. After the scheme is finalized and confirmed
under Section 21 (1), the scheme has to be enforced. The
person, who gets the excess land, is required to deposit the
amount as determined under Section 16 of the Act. The
amount deposited has to be paid to the person who looses the
land. Although the person entitled to larger holding can be put
in possession prior to the deposit of compensation, it is held by
the impugned order that there is no evidence that the
petitioners are put in possession of the larger holding.
38. The authority has in the impugned order held that the
petitioners are not put in possession of the additional land as
shown in the confirmed scheme under Section 21 of the Act
and thus the petitioners are merely holding the excess land on
paper. For the excess land, compensation is not determined
and deposited and paid and thus the record indicates that the
process as contemplated under the Act qua the determination
and payment of compensation for the excess land has not been
initiated and completed. Thus, the Authority constituted under
the Act has arrived at a finding that there is clerical error of
showing excess land in the name of purchasers and has
invoked it's powers under Section 31A of the Act and has
directed for rectification / correction in the entries.
39. In the instant case, the changes are made, on account
of clerical mistakes in noting the area, as such there is no
corresponding change in the consolidation scheme and there is
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
no change in the gat numbers. It is only the areas mentioned
qua respective owners i.e. found to be defective and sought to
be rectified. Section 32 of the Act would come into play when
at the time of making correction, the gats are to be re-
organized and there is variation in the scheme. In the instant
case, the authority has rightly come to the conclusion that
powers under Section 31A of the Act needs to be exercised to
correct the clerical errors as there is no variation in the scheme
but mere recording of correct ownership of the respective
owners, in the existing gat numbers.
40. In the instant case, the consolidation scheme is not
enforced under Section 21 of the Act with respect to the
petitioners qua the excess lands mentioned in the scheme. The
respondents are not evicted from the excess land after
payment of compensation as such there is no delay in filing
the application for correction of scheme. It cannot be
presumed that the respondents lost their land without
payment of compensation, so also the lands are not
exchanged. Non payment of compensation to the respondents
would violate the constitutional right to property of the
respondents under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
There is no assertion made by the petitioners that the
petitioners have deposited compensation for the excess land
granted to them under the scheme. The excess land in favour
of the petitioners is merely shown in the confirmed scheme.
41. In the cases of Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade and also in
the case of Dattu Appa Patil [supra], the parties were put in
possession of their respective holding under Section 21 and
the scheme had come into force under Section 22 of the Act
and the same was sought to be reopened after a huge delay
and thus in the fact situation this Court had not permitted
exercise of powers under Section 32 of the Act after a long
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
period of delay of more than 3 years after the consolidation
scheme had come into force under Section 22 of the Act.
42. The Authorities have exercised the powers correctly
since much larger lands are shown in the record of the
purchaser under the consolidation scheme then what was
purchased by them before implementation of the consolidation
scheme and that the process as contemplated under Section 21
of the Act is not undertaken. Compensation is also not
computed in terms of Section 16 of the Act and thus no
compensation is deposited in terms of Section 21 of the Act
and there is no handing over of the possession of the excess
land to the petitioners under Section 21 of the Act."
35. The aforesaid enunciation of law appears to be of all four with
the facts of the case at hand. Viewed through the aforesaid prism, this
Court is of the considered view that, in the instant case the exercise of
the power by the Superintendent, Land Records, was indeed for
correction of the defect in the Scheme which arose on account of the
clerical error in mentioning the area of the respective lands. The
Superintendent of Land Records was, therefore, justified in correcting
the clerical error. The exercise of power is supported by objective
material which justified such corrections. As the original Scheme was
not enforced in the manner envisaged by the Act of 1947 and the area
mentioned in the Gunakar Book and under the Consolidation Scheme
remained a paper entry, the correction thereof cannot be faulted at on
the premise that it was done after a number of years.
-WP-12414-2017.DOC
36. For the forgoing reasons, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction,
this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the
impugned orders. The Petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
37. Hence the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The Petition stands dismissed.
(ii) Rule discharged.
(iii) No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
