[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sambhaji Sitaram Mhetre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:6770
Dilwale 1 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
4 WRIT PETITION NO. 13020 OF 2018
Sambhaji s/o Sitaram Mhetre }
Age: 52 Years, Occu:Agril }
R/o: Karjat, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar }
Through his Power of Attorney Holder }
Dadasaheb s/o Sambhaji Mhetre }
Age : 28 years, Occu: Agril }
R/o. Karjat, Tq.Karjat }
Dist. Ahmednagar. }
..Petitioner
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra }
Through Secretary }
Revenue and Forest Department }
Mantralaya, Mumbai }
2. The Deputy Director of Land Record, }
Nashik Division, Nashik }
3. The District Superintendent of Land Record, }
Ahemednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar }
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Land Record }
Karjat, Dist. Ahemednagar. }
(Copy of respondent no.1 to 4 be served }
on Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay }
Bench at Aurangabad). }
5. Suvarna Rahul Sonmali, }
Age : Major, Occu: Agril, }
R/o Karjat, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahemednagar }
6. Amol s/o Govindrao Sonmanli, }
Age : Major, Occu: Agril. }
R/o Karjat, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar }
Dilwale 2 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
7. Sopan s/o Namdeo Zagade, }
Age: 77 Years, Occu: Agril. }
R/o Bhandewadi, Tq. Karjat, }
Dist. Ahmednagar. }
8. Rohini w/o Sanjay Raikar, }
Age:Major, Occu; Agril. }
R/o Chimbhali, Near Z. P. School, }
Room No.4, Tq. Khed, Dist. Pune }
9. Janki w/o Baban Chavan }
Age : Major, Occu: Agril }
R/o Panchayat Samiti Road, }
Infront of Ratnakamal Mangal Karyalaya, }
Om Ayurvedic Clinic, Shrigonda, }
Dist. Ahmednagar }..Respondents
...
Mr. V. P. Latange, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. Vivek V. Tarde, Advocate for the Respondent nos.5 & 6
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Reserved on : 04.02.2026
Pronounced on : 10.02.2026
JUDGEMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing
at the stage of admission.
2. Heard Mr. Latange, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. B.
Dhaware, the learned AGP for the respondent-State, and Mr. Vivek V.
Tarde, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2016 passed
by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik Division, Nashik in
Dilwale 3 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
Appeal No. SR/540/2016, Ahmednagar which was confirmed by the
order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Minister (Revenue), State
of Maharashtra in Case No.3316/125/PK-505/J-6.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
i) It is the case of the petitioner that land Survey No.458/2
admeasuring 2H 50R situated at village Karjat, District
Ahmednagar, was originally owned by Sopan and Dnyandeo
Zagade (both brothers). The petitioner purchased land
admeasuring 1H 62R from the said survey number by a registered
sale deed dated 15.04.1986.
ii) Thereafter, Survey No.458/2 was divided into two parts,
namely Survey No.458/2A admeasuring 0H 88R in the name of
Sopan and Dnyandeo Zagade, and Survey No.458/2B admeasuring
1H 62R came to be recorded in the name of the present petitioner.
Pursuant to the said sale deed, the petitioner was put in possession
and has been cultivating the land. Mutation Entry No.3238 was
also effected in the name of the petitioner.
iii) During the consolidation scheme, the Consolidation Officer
recorded Mutation Entry No.171 without issuing notice to the
petitioner. Though the petitioner was holding land admeasuring 1H
62R as per the sale deed, while recording the said mutation entry,
the holding of the petitioner was shown as 1H 46R, thereby
Dilwale 4 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
reflecting 16R less land, and the said portion came to be recorded
in the name of Dnyandeo.
iv) Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application before
the District Superintendent of Land Records, Ahmednagar. After
hearing the parties, it was observed that there was a mistake on the
part of the Consolidation Officer, and therefore, by order dated
19.01.2015, the District Superintendent directed correction of the
holdings as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
v) Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Superintendent of Land
Records issued notices to all concerned landholders and carried out
measurement. It was found that an error had been committed
while recording the holding of the petitioner and that 16R land
was incorrectly reduced, which was not in consonance with the
registered sale deed.
vi) Respondent Nos.5 and 6, being aggrieved, preferred an
appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik along
with an application for condonation of delay. The Deputy Director
allowed the appeal by order dated 13.10.2016. The petitioner
challenged the said order by filing a revision before the State
Government; however, the same came to be dismissed. Hence, the
present petition.
Dilwale 5 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is the owner by virtue of the registered sale deed and is in possession of
land admeasuring 1H 62R. It is submitted that during the consolidation
scheme, 16R land was wrongly shown in the name of the Dnyandeo.
After considering the measurement report and possession of the
petitioner, the District Superintendent of Land Records rightly approved
the correction. However, the Deputy Director of Land Records and the
State Minister committed an apparent error while entertaining the
proceedings at the instance of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, the
petition deserves to be allowed.
6. The learned AGP supports the orders passed by the Deputy
Director of Land Records and the State Minister.
7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that
during the consolidation scheme, the area was corrected with the
consent of the petitioner and that the application filed by the petitioner
was beyond a reasonable period. It is further submitted that the thumb
impression of the petitioner was recorded on Mutation Entry No.171.
Therefore, the proceedings were rightly rejected on the ground of delay
as well as on merits.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the record, there is no dispute that the petitioner purchased
Dilwale 6 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
land admeasuring 1H 62R and was put in possession pursuant to the
registered sale deed. The measurement carried out by the competent
authority clearly indicates that the petitioner is in possession of 1H 62R
and that 16R land was wrongly reduced while recording the
consolidation entries.
9. In view of the above, the law laid down by this Court in Tulsiram
and others v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2023, SCC Online
Bom 2204 decided by a Coordinate Bench, is squarely applicable to the
present case. This Court has considered the issue in paragraphs 3, 14 to
18, 22, 28 to 31, and 36 to 42 as follows:-
3] After 40 years of scheme being confirmed, the respondent nos. 5 and 6
filed an application with the Deputy Superintendent of Land Record on
24.02.1998 for making the correction in area recorded in 7/12 extract of
Gat No.192 to 195. It is the contention of the respondents that less area
was sold to the petitioners, however, more area has been shown in the
name of the petitioners in the consolidation scheme.
14] It is well settled that the scheme enforced under the Maharashtra
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be
varied after long period i.e. ordinarily beyond 3 years of scheme coming
into force under Section 22 of the Act. However, in order to ascertain the
date from which the period of limitation would commence to challenge
the scheme, it is necessary to ascertain the date on which the
consolidation scheme comes into force under Section 22 of the Act and
for that purpose the consolidation scheme of the Act needs to be
examined.
SCHEME OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF FRAGMENTATION AND
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT :
15] The Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act is enacted for preventing fragmentation of agricultural
holdings and to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings for
the purpose of the better cultivation of agricultural lands. In terms of
Section 3 of the Act, the State Government may, after such inquiry as it
deems fit, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify a village, mahal or
taluka or any part thereof as a local area for the purposes of the Act. In terms of
Section 5 (3) of the Act, the State Government shall, by notification in the
Official Gazette, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, give public
notice of any standard area determined under sub-section (1) or revised under
sub-section (2). In terms of Section 6 (1) of the Act, on notification of a standard
area under sub-section (3) of section 5 for a local area all fragments in the local
area shall be entered as such in the Record of Rights or where there is no Record
Dilwale 7 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
of Rights in such village record as the State Government may prescribe.
16] In terms of Section 8 of the Act, no land in any local area shall be
transferred or partitioned so as to create a fragment. Section 8AA provides for
restriction on partition of land. Section 9 provides for penalty for transfer or
partition contrary to provisions of Act. Section 14 prohibits sale of fragment at
Court sale or to create a fragment by such sale.
17] Chapter III deals with procedure for consolidation. With the object of
consolidating holdings in any village, mahal, taluka or tehsil or any part thereof
for the purpose of better cultivation of lands therein, the State Government may
declare by a notification in the official gazette and by publication in the
prescribed manner in the village or villages concerned its intention to make a
scheme for the consolidation of holdings in such village or villages or part
thereof as may be specified. On such publication in the village concerned, the
State Government may appoint a Consolidation Officer who shall proceed to
prepare a scheme for the consolidation of holdings in such village or villages or
part thereof.
18] Section 16 provides for compensation. The scheme prepared by the
Consolidation Officer shall provide for the payment of compensation to
any owner who is allotted a holding of less market value than that of his
original holding and for the recovery of compensation from any owner
who is allotted a holding of greater market value than that of his original
holding.
22] Section 22 of the Act provides for coming into force of scheme. As
soon as the persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act have
entered into possession of the holdings respectively allotted to them, the
scheme shall be deemed to have come into force.
28] The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dattu Appa Patil and others
Vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 393 while
applying the law laid down in the case of Gulabrao [supra] at para no.18 has
held as under :
18. We feel that these observations are clearly
attracted to the present case. We have already noted
that the Consolidation Scheme came to be applied to
the Village Asurle in the year 1962. The lands were
exchanged by consent of the parties in the year 1962
after recording statements of the parties. Possession
receipts were executed. Accordingly, changes were
introduced in the village revenue records and parties
continued to cultivate their respective allotted lands.
This arrangement was accepted by the parties without
any demur. The father of respondent 3 was alive till
1988. He made no complaints about any fraud having
been committed. It is only in the year 1989 that
respondent 3 for the first time made an application for
variation. The application for variation is made
nearly after about 27 years. Therefore, the Settlement
Commissioner erred in exercising his power under
section 32(1) of effecting variation in the Scheme.
Period of 27 years can certainly not be called
reasonable period. Besides, serious allegations of
fraud could not have been decided by him in such a
manner.
29] The above two judgments i.e. Gulabrao & Dattu Appa Patil [supra]
indicate that the power of Settlement Officer to vary the scheme in
Dilwale 8 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
exercise of its power under Section 32 of the Act are available to him
ordinarily until 3 years from the date when the scheme under Section 22
of the Act has come into force. The consolidation passes through the stage
of publication of the draft scheme, confirmation of the final scheme and
publication of the same in the official gazette and thereafter the scheme is
implemented / enforced and on completion of enforcement in view of
Section 22 of the Act, the scheme is deemed to have come into force.
30] In the instant case, the scheme is confirmed under Section 21 (1) of
the 1950 Act on 23.03.1977. However, there is no date known when the
scheme came into force under Section 22 of the Act qua the present
petitioners. The scheme comes into force individually and the entire
scheme does not come into force at once, it comes into force partially
when in compliance of Section 21 a person entitled to the holding is put
in possession of the holding i.e. the date when the possession of the holding is
handed over to each of the entitled person. The power under Section 32 of the
Act to vary the scheme has been consistently held by this Court has to be
exercised ordinarily within 3 years from the date of scheme coming into force
and thus limitation does not commence from the date of confirmation of the
scheme, which is published in the official gazette. The date on which the
consolidation scheme comes into force would depend on the possession of each
individual holding being handed over to the entitled person after following due
process. If the Settlement Commissioner is of the view that further process as
contemplated under Section 21 in respect of deposit of compensation and grant
of compensation, eviction of the occupant and transfer of possession has not
taken place and only confirmation of the entire scheme has taken place under
Section 21 (1), the Settlement Commissioner is entitled to exercise jurisdiction
under Section 31A and 32 of the Act.
31] The scheme cannot be varied after three years from the date of the
scheme having come into force. However, while applying settled law, the
learned counsel of petitioners has submitted that the date of publication
of confirmation of the scheme under Section 21 (1) is the date from
which the limitation is to be considered. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the scheme being published in the official
gazette, three years has to be counted from the date of publication of the
confirmation of the scheme is erroneous in law. The date on which the
scheme comes into force under Section 22, is the relevant date and that
there is no publication of the date on which the scheme comes into force
as it comes into force partially in each individual case when the land
holding is put in possession in favour of the person entitled to such
possession. Correspondingly the entitled person has to deposit
compensation for the excess land received by him and the same is payable
to the person who looses the land. In the event the compensation is not
deposited by the entitled person, the same can be recovered as land
revenue. Any person loosing land i.e. gets a land of lesser value has to be
compensated for loss of land and any person entitled to receive the land
of higher value has to deposit the compensation.
10. As well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter
of Krishanabai Bhausaheb Gore and others v. State of Maharashtra
and others, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3222 has considered the issue
in paragraph Nos. 7, 10, 12, 24 and 35:-
Dilwale 9 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
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.
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 and Bapu Gunda
Mirje & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
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 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 & Ors.
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 possession in enforcement of the
scheme under Section 21 of the Act.
Dilwale 10 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
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 In the absence of any justification on
record as to how and on what basis the area purchased by
the petitioner under the registered Sale Deed came to be
reduced, a serious discrepancy arises. Once such reduction
was noticed by the petitioner, the authorities were
required to exercise powers under Section 31-A of the The
Maharashtra Prevention Of Fragmentation And
Consolidation Of Holdings Act, 1947 and examine the
correctness of the record. 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 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
Dilwale 11 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
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 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.
11. The District Superintendent of Land Records, after considering
the actual measurement and the record, recorded a finding that there
was a mistake in the consolidation scheme while recording the holding
Dilwale 12 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
of the petitioner. Once it is established that the petitioner is the owner
by virtue of the registered sale deed and that the record incorrectly
reflected lesser land in his name, the order passed by the District
Superintendent required no interference.
12. The contention regarding consent of the petitioner cannot be
accepted in the absence of any cogent record to that effect, particularly
when the authority has recorded a categorical finding that the entry
was incorrect.
13. In the absence of any justification on record as to how and on
what basis the area purchased by the petitioner under the registered
Sale Deed came to be reduced, a serious discrepancy arises. Once such
reduction was noticed by the petitioner, the authorities were required to
exercise powers under Section 31-A of the The Maharashtra Prevention
Of Fragmentation And Consolidation Of Holdings Act, 1947 and
examine the correctness of the record. Therefore, the petition deserves
to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:-
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the Deputy
Director of Land Records, Nashik Division, Nashik in
Appeal No. SR/540/2016 and the order dated 25.09.2018
passed by the learned Minister (Revenue), State of
Dilwale 13 judgment-WP-13020-18.odt
Maharashtra in Case No.3316/125/PK-505/J-6 are
quashed and set aside.
iii) The order dated 19.01.2015 passed by District
Superintendent of Land Records, Ahmednagar in Appeal
No.558/2013 is confirmed.
iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
