Bombay High Court
SURESH DATTU PADOLE AND ANOTHERversusPANDHARINATH PANDURANG PADOLE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
An application for correction of land records cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of delay where the applicant was unaware of the erroneous reduction, and the authority must examine and rectify the discrepancy.
Summary
The petitioners, owners of land in Ahmednagar, alleged that after a consolidation scheme the recorded area of their property was reduced for certain survey numbers. They filed an application for correction of the area and for condonation of delay, which was rejected by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Ahmednagar, and the rejection was upheld by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik. The petitioners contended that they had no prior knowledge of the reduction and that the delay ground was therefore inappropriate. The High Court held that the authorities could not dismiss the application solely on the basis of delay when the petitioners were unaware of the erroneous entry and that the unilateral deduction caused prejudice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders, directed a fresh consideration with a hearing, and ordered any discrepancy to be rectified in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- The validity of rejecting a correction of land record application on the ground of delay when the applicant was unaware of the erroneous reduction.
- Whether the authorities must justify the basis for reduction of recorded land area after consolidation.
- Whether the impugned orders of the District Superintendent and Deputy Director should be quashed.
Subjects
- land consolidation
- correction of record
- condonation of delay
- land revenue
- writ petition
- quashing order
- hearing
- land records
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:16273
1 of 4 901-WP.8793.2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 WRIT PETITION NO. 8793 OF 2016
SURESH DATTU PADOLE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
PANDHARINATH PANDURANG PADOLE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. A. Patel and Mr. V. B. Kakde h/f. Mr. Abhijeet P. Avhad, Advocate for
the Petitioners.
Mr. Pradeep K. Palve, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. D. R. Korade, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 7.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 10th APRIL, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioners challenge the order
dated 14.08.2014 passed by the learned District Superintendent of
Land Records, Ahmednagar in File No. Amalgamation/Appeal/S.R.
No.31/2014, whereby the application for condonation of delay filed by
the Petitioners came to be rejected, which was confirmed by the order
dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records,
Nashik Division, Nashik in File No. Amalgamation/Appeal/S.R.
No.387/2015/Ahmednagar.
3. Mr. A. Patel and Mr. V. B. Kakde holding for Mr. Abhijeet P.
Avhad, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, invited my attention to the
application at page No.9 and, in particular, paragraph No.5 thereof to
submit that prior to the consolidation scheme, the area of the land was
Tauseef
2 of 4 901-WP.8793.2016.odt
recorded differently and, after consolidation, there appears to be a
reduction in the area, particularly in respect of Survey No.14/6 (Gat
No.39/1) and Survey No.14/8 (Gat No.36). It is contended that the
issue pertains only to correction of the record and that the Petitioners
continue to be in possession of the property as per the pre-
consolidation record. The Petitioners have filed application for
correction of area before the District Superintendent of Land Records,
Ahmednagar along with an application for condonation of delay, which
came to be rejected. An appeal filed against the same was also rejected
by Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik. He submits that it was
incumbent upon the authorities to justify as to on what basis the area
came to be reduced after the consolidation scheme.
4. Per contra, Mr. Pradeep K. Palve, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.1 and Mr. D. R. Korade, learned Advocate for
Respondent Nos.3 to 7 support the impugned orders and pray to
dismiss the present petition.
5. Upon perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that
application for correction of area came to be rejected on the ground of
delay. Insofar as the aspect of delay is concerned, it is not the case that
the Petitioners had prior knowledge of the altered entries. The record
indicates that the change in area occurred after the consolidation
scheme and, prima facie, such change appears to have been effected
without the knowledge of the Petitioners. In such circumstances, the
Tauseef
3 of 4 901-WP.8793.2016.odt
delay in approaching the authority cannot be a ground to reject the
application outright. Deduction of area unilaterally causes serious
prejudice to the Petitioners and bonafide application filed by the
Petitioners to inquire the same requires scrutiny by the authorities. In
view of the above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are
liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the learned
District Superintendent of Land Records, Ahmednagar in
File No. Amalgamation/Appeal/S.R. No.31/2014 and
the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Deputy
Director of Land Records, Nashik Division, Nashik in File
No. Amalgamation/Appeal/S.R. No.387/2015/
Ahmednagar are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The District Superintendent of Land Records,
Ahmednagar is directed to reconsider the application by
granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners as
well as the Respondents and to pass a reasoned order,
particularly addressing the issue as to on what basis the
area of the land came to be reduced after the
consolidation scheme.
(iv) After reconsideration, the District Superintendent of
Land Records, Ahmednagar shall submit an appropriate
proposal, if required, to the Deputy Director of Land
Records, Nashik Division, Nashik.
Tauseef
4 of 4 901-WP.8793.2016.odt
(v) The Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik Division,
Nashik shall, upon receipt of such proposal, grant an
opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(vi) It is clarified that if any discrepancy in the recorded area
is found, it shall be the duty of the concerned authority
to rectify the same in accordance with law.
(vii) The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously
as possible.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…