RAMRAO BHAURAO RATHOD AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40217



                                                                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