Bombay High Court
GULAB KISAN KADAMversusRAMRAO BHAURAO RATHOD AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
A consolidation scheme that has attained finality cannot be varied after an unreasonable delay; the Minister's order modifying the scheme is set aside.
Summary
The petitioners purchased portions of land in Wanjarkheda, Latur, which had been allotted under a consolidation scheme finalized in 1974 under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. In 2012, a co‑sharer (Respondent No. 3) sought correction of the revenue maps, but the Deputy Director of Land Records rejected the application on the ground of limitation, noting that objections to the scheme could be raised only within 30 days under Section 19 of the Act. The State Minister (Revenue) reversed that decision in 2014, directing modification of the 7/12 extracts to reflect actual possession. The petitioners challenged the Minister’s order, arguing that a scheme that has attained finality cannot be reopened after a delay of nearly four decades, especially where third‑party rights have vested. Relying on Section 19 and the precedent set in Gunda Tuka Shinde v. Pandharinath Ramrao Shinde, the Court held that the Minister’s order was illegal, quashed it, and restored the Deputy Director’s original rejection.
Issues considered
- Whether a consolidation scheme finalized in 1974 can be varied after a delay of 38 years.
- Whether the statutory limitation period under Section 19 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 bars the modification of the scheme.
- Whether the rights of third‑party purchasers who acquired land in 1985 are protected against retrospective alteration of the scheme.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- consolidation scheme
- limitation period
- land records
- 7/12 extract
- third‑party rights
- Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act
- statutory limitation
- revision of revenue maps
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40219
69 WP No.5840.2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5840 OF 2014
RAMRAO BHAURAO RATHOD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
***
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. D. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. V. D. Gunale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sachin S. Panale
***
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2928 OF 2026
IN WP/5840/2014
GULAB KISAN KADAM
VERSUS
RAMRAO BHAURAO RATHOD AND OTHERS
***
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sachin S. Panale
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7936 OF 2014
SHAMSUNDAR VAIJNATH KADAM AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
SHRIRANG VYANKAT KADAM AND OTHERS
***
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. V. D. Salunke
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. D. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 27th August, 2026
69 WP No.5840.2014
-2-
ORDER :-
1. Since the issues raised and the challenged order in both
these writ petitions are common, the same are being heard
together and decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No.
5840 of 2014 is treated as the lead petition.
2. The petitions challenge the judgment and order dated
04.03.2014 rendered by the Hon’ble State Minister (Revenue),
Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai in Appeal No. 2013/Pra.Kra-
341-J-7A, allowing the revision application presented by Shrirang
S/o Venkat Kadam (Respondent No. 3 in WP No. 5840 of 2014 and
Respondent No. 1 in WP No. 7936 of 2014) and set aside the order
dated 11.03.2013 rendered by the Deputy Director of Land
Records, Aurangabad.
3. The land in question, situated at village Wanjarkheda,
Taluka and District Latur, were subject to a consolidation scheme
under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1947. The scheme was finalized and implemented
in the year 1974. At the time of implementation, the original
landholders mutually agreed upon the distribution and allocation of
shares and executed a signed consent statement before the
69 WP No.5840.2014
-3-
Consolidation Authorities on 24.01.1974. Revenue records and
maps were prepared based on this consensual distribution.
Following the same, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5840 of
2014 purchased portions of Gat No. 184 through registered sale
deeds on 27.12.1985 and have been in possession.
4. However, on 30.10.2012, after a lapse of nearly 38
years, Respondent No. 3 presented an application before the
Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, seeking a correction
of the area and revenue maps of old Survey Nos. 80 and 81 (now
Gat Nos. 182 to 186). An area of 1H-28R had been recorded in
favor of other sharers during consolidation. On 11.03.2013, the
Deputy Director of Land Records rejected the application, holding
that the boundaries were settled by mutual consent in the year
1974 and the challenge was barred by limitation.
5. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No. 3 presented a
revision before the Hon’ble State Minister (Revenue), who allowed
the application and directed the Authorities to modify the 7/12
extracts and maps to reflect actual possession. This order is the
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
69 WP No.5840.2014
-4-
6. Mr. Salunke and Mr. Rathi, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted the consolidation scheme attained finality in
the year 1974 with the consent of the original owners. A settled
scheme cannot be reopened after 38 years, especially when third-
party rights have been created through registered sales in the year
1985. The counsel further submitted that any application for
variation must be made within a reasonable timeframe. As such,
the order rendered by the Hon’ble Minister order is illegal and
unsustainable. As such, prayed to allow the petitions.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondents
supported the order rendered by the Minister. The Respondent No.
3 is losing a major portion of ancestral land due to a clerical
mistake during the measurements for Hissa Form No. 4. Revenue
records must align with actual possession and cultivation, which is
directed by the Hon’ble Minister.
8. The learned AGP for the State supports the order and
submits that the consolidation procedures were followed in the year
1974 and as such, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for litigating sides
and perusing the material on record, the issue falls for
69 WP No.5840.2014
-5-
consideration is whether a finalized consolidation scheme can be
reopened after nearly four decades. Section 19 of the Bombay
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1947, provides a specific statutory period of 30 days for raising
objections against a published scheme.
10. It is an admitted fact that the original predecessors-in-
title executed a written consent statement on 24.01.1974. No
objection was raised by anyone at that time or for 38 years
thereafter. It is a well-settled principle of law, laid down by this
Court in Gunda Tuka Shinde vs. Pandharinath Ramrao Shinde
[1991 (1) Mh.L.J. 669] that the statutory powers to vary a
consolidation scheme cannot be exercised after an unreasonable
delay, particularly when third-party interests have intervened.
Allowing modifications after such a long time introduces severe
complications into the settled titles of subsequent bona fide
purchasers who have been in possession for decades.
11. Moreover, a perusal of the order under challenge dated
04.03.2014 indicates that the Hon'ble Minister failed to consider
the question of limitation and delay in its proper perspective. The
order is inconsistent and ambiguous, since it directs corrections
simultaneously based on "actual possession," "Hissa Form No. 4,"
69 WP No.5840.2014
-6-
and "Phalani-12" without identifying where the specific error lies or
ascertaining the impacts of the scheme implemented in the year
1974. Such order is unsustainable.
12. It is pertinent to note that the Deputy Director of Land
Records had rightly rejected the application on 11.03.2013
regarding the same as delayed one. However, the Hon’ble Minister
committed an error while reversing the said decision. Therefore,
both writ petitions needs to be allowed. Hence, following order :-
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No. 5840 of 2014 and Writ Petition No.
7936 of 2014 are allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order dated 04.03.2014 passed by
the Hon’ble State Minister (Revenue), Government of
Maharashtra, Mumbai in File No. 2013/Pra.Kra-341-J-7A is
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The order dated 11.03.2013 rendered by the Deputy
Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, rejecting the
modification application of Respondent No. 3, stands
restored.
(iv) No order as to costs.
(v) Resultantly, pending civil applications also stand
disposed of.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…