HARISHCHANDRA BABU JAGDALE AND OTHERSversusWAMAN NAMDEO JAGDALE, L.RS. NARHARI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38523



                                                                902 WP No.9059.2014
                                              -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 9059 OF 2014

                     1.   Harishchandra s/o Babu Jagdale,
                          Age: 62 years, Occu: Agriculture,
                          R/o Takali (Dhoki), Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad

                     2.   Kishan s/o Babu Jagadale,
                          Age: 53 years, Occu: Agriculture,
                          R/o as above.

                     3.   Achut s/o Babu Jagadale,
                          Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture,
                          R/o as above.

                     4.   Manik s/o Babu Jagdale,
                          Deceased through his Legal Representatives

                          5-A) Latabai Manik Jagdale,
                          Age: 45 years, Occu: Household,
                          R/o Takali (Dhoki), Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad.

                          5-B) Sham s/o Manik Jagdale,
                          Age: 24 years, Occu: Agriculture,
                          R/o as above.

                          5-C) Ranjeet s/o Manik Jagdale,
                          Age: 18 years, Occu: Agriculture,
                          R/o as above.

                          5-D) Jaisingh s/o Babu Jagdale,
                          Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture,
                          R/o as above

                                                              .... PETITIONERS
                                           VERSUS

                     1.   Waman s/o Namdeo Jagdale,
                          Deceased through his Legal Representatives

                          1-A) Narhari s/o Waman Jagdale,
                                                          902 WP No.9059.2014
                                   -2-

           Age: 58 years, Occu: Agriculture,
           R/o. Takali (Dhoki), Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad.

           1-B) Shrihari s/o Waman Jagdale,
           Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture,
           R/o as above.

           1-C) Rama s/o Waman Jagdale,
           Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture,
           R/o as above.

     2.    The District Inspector of Land Records,
           Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

     3.    The Deputy Director of Land Records,
           Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

                                                       .... RESPONDENTS
                                   ***
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. P. S. Chavan
Advocate for Respondents No. 1A to 1C : Mr. Manoj Shelke
AGP for Respondents No. 2 and 3 -State : Mr. P. D. Patil
                                   ***

                 CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                    Date : 20th August, 2026

JUDGMENT :-


1.         Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the parties.



2.         The   petitioners   have      questioned      the   order   dated

12.08.2014 rendered by the Deputy Director of Land Records,

Aurangabad    Division,   Aurangabad,      in   File   No.     Consolidation

/Appeal/SR-880/2013,      allowing       the    appeal       presented    by
                                                        902 WP No.9059.2014
                                    -3-

Respondent    No.    1,   setting   aside   a   dismissal   order   dated

28.03.2013 passed by the District Inspector of Land Records and

directed the Authorities to vary the Consolidation Scheme under

Section 31A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.



3.           The    consolidation   scheme      was   implemented     and

finalised for village Takali (Dhoki) under the provisions of the

Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings

Act, 1947 and the same was published in the Government Gazette

on 18.05.1978. Following the finalisation of the scheme, the parties

were placed in possession of the respective consolidated holdings

as per Section 21(3) of the Act. On 03.12.1979, the Consolidation

Officer granted a Certificate under Section 24 of the Act in favour

of Babu Jagdale, who is the deceased father of the petitioners. The

certificate verified the title and possession over multiple parcels of

land, including Survey No. 39/2 admeasuring 0H 59R. The revenue

records   were      subsequently    updated     by    the   Consolidation

Authorities which indicates the finalized entries and the parties

continued to occupy and cultivate the lands based on the entries.



4.           After a lapse of thirty years, Respondent No. 1
                                                          902 WP No.9059.2014
                                     -4-

preferred an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land

Revenue Code before the Consolidation Authorities. Respondent

No.   1   contended   that   prior    to   the   implementation     of   the

consolidation scheme, was the original owner of Survey No. 39/2

admeasuring 51R and that the land was wrongly recorded in favour

of Babu Jagdale during the consolidation process.



5.          The   District   Inspector     of    Land   Records,   Nanded,

rendered an order on 28.03.2013 dismissing the appeal on the

grounds that the consolidation scheme was finalized way back in

the year 1978 and possessed no statutory authority to vary such a

scheme after such an inordinate delay.



6.          Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No. 1 presented

the appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records at

Aurangabad, who rendered the order on 12.08.2014, allowing the

appeal and directing a variation of the scheme under Section 31A

of the Act. Being aggrieved, petitioners approached this Court.



7.          Mr. Chavan, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the Respondent No. 3 has committed an error and

overreach while exercising a jurisdiction which is not vested. The
                                                       902 WP No.9059.2014
                                   -5-

consolidation scheme for village Takali (Dhoki) was commenced,

conducted and eventually concluded in accordance with the

provisions of the Act of 1947. The finality of the scheme is evident

from publication in the Government Gazette on 18.05.1978 and the

subsequent issuance of the Certificate under Section 24 of the Act

to the petitioners' deceased father. Once the scheme had been

implemented and the parties were put in              possession of the

respective allotted holdings, it was impermissible for the Deputy

Director of Land Records to revive an issue that had attained

finality three decades ago.



8.         The   learned      counsel    further   submitted   that   the

petitioners had raised a objection regarding the jurisdiction before

the Appellate Authority. However, the learned Deputy Director of

Land Records, Aurangabad, while rendering the impugned order,

failed to consider the same. The subsequent proceedings initiated

under the garb of Section 32 of the Act for variation of the scheme

are not maintainable after such an inordinate delay of 30 years.



9.         In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for

the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments :

     (a)   Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade Vs. Nivrutti Krishna
           Bhilare and Ors. [2001(4) Mh. L. J. 31]
                                                       902 WP No.9059.2014
                                   -6-


      (b)   Dattu Appa Patil and Ors. Vs. State                        of
            Maharashtra and Ors. [2007(1) Mh. L. J. 393]

      (c)   Ganpati Dadu Mali and Ors. Vs. State                       of
            Maharashtra and Ors. [2012 (1) Mh. L. J. 341]

      (d)   Bapu Ganda Mirje and Ors. Vs. State                        of
            Maharashtra and Ors. [2015(1) ALL MR 697]

      (e)   Suresh Bapu Sankanna and Ors. Vs. State of
            Maharashtra and Ors. [2018(4) Mh. L. J. 331]



10.         Per   contra,   Mr.   Shelke,   the   learned   counsel   for

Respondents No. 1A to 1C, vehemently opposed the petition and

submitted that a substantial portion of land belonging to the

respondents, to the extent of 0H 51R, was wrongfully reduced and

taken away during the         implementation      of the    consolidation

scheme. The deprivation was effected without extending any notice

or opportunity to the respondents. The learned counsel submitted

that the reduction was a clerical and mathematical error committed

by the consolidation authorities while implementing the scheme

wherin the old survey numbers were assigned new block numbers.



11.         The learned counsel further submitted that since the

error committed by the authority was clerical and procedural in

nature, it could be corrected or rectified at any stage. Even though

the objection was brought to the attention of the authorities at a
                                                        902 WP No.9059.2014
                                   -7-

belated stage, the learned Deputy Director of Land Records was

justified in entertaining the proceedings and condoning the delay.



12.         To support the contentions and demonstrate that

clerical errors can be rectified despite a lapse of time, the learned

counsel placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court

on 27.11.2013 in the case of Suman Annasaheb Naykal Vs. The

State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 9694 of

2011).



13.         The learned AGP supported the order under challenge

and prayed for dismissal of the petition.



14.         Upon hearing the learned counsel for the litigating sides

and perusing the entire material available on record, it is

imperative to examine the statutory scheme of the Bombay

Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,

1947. The Act contemplates a mechanism that provides multiple

opportunities   to   landholders   to    raise   objections   during   the

formulation and implementation of a consolidation scheme. Under

Section 19 of the Act, when a draft consolidation scheme is ready,

the Consolidation Officer is under statutory obligation to publish it
                                                    902 WP No.9059.2014
                                   -8-

in the prescribed manner, issuing notice to all affected parties. Any

landholder who feels aggrieved or likely to be affected by the draft

allocations is provide a statutory period of 30 days from the date of

publication to raise written objections. In the absence of any

objections, the draft scheme is presumed to be implemented

among the landholders.



15.         Preceded by the same, under Section 20 of the Act, the

Settlement Commissioner evaluates the objections, if any, verifies

the correctness of the layout and confirms the scheme. Once it is

confirmed, the scheme is put into enforcement under Section 21 of

the Act by publishing a final notification in the Official Gazette.

Eventually, the process culminates under Section 24 of the Act,

which mandates the issuance of a statutory Certificate of Transfer

to the allottees. The Certificate operates as a conclusive proof of

title and transfer, endorsing that the holdings have been vested in

the respective holders.



16.         In the present case, the consolidation scheme for

village   Takali   (Dhoki)   was   undisputedly   published   in   the

Government Gazette on 18.05.1978 and consequent to same, the

competent authority issued the Certificate under Section 24 of the
                                                     902 WP No.9059.2014
                                 -9-

Act in favour of the petitioners' predecessor-in-title on 03.12.1979.



17.         Once a scheme is commenced, concluded and enforced

through the issuance of a Certificate under Section 24 of the Act,

the entire exercise attains finality. It was open to Respondent No. 1

to raise objections regarding the reduction or measurement of land

during the course of the implementation of the scheme under

Section 19 of the Act. There is no material on record to indicate

that the respondents were deprived of a reasonable opportunity to

present an objection during the implementation of scheme.

Consequently, after a lapse of more than three decades, it is not

open for Respondent No. 1 to reopen an issue that has attained

finality.


18.         The submission put forth on behalf of Respondent No. 1

that the authority can correct the entries at any belated stage

taking recourse to Section 31A of the Act in order to rectify a

clerical or arithmetic error, cannot be countenanced. Although

Section 31A of the Act does not prescribe a specific mathematical

period of limitation for correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes,

it is a settled principle of law that statutory power essentially must

be exercised within a reasonable period, in absence of prescribed

period.
                                                  902 WP No.9059.2014
                               -10-



19.        The Division Bench of this Court has dealt with this

aspect in detail in the case of Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade Vs.

Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare and Ors. (supra).       In para 6 of the

Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade (supra), the Division Bench of this

Court observed 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 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
                                                              902 WP No.9059.2014
                                     -11-

         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.”


20.          In the present case, the Consolidation scheme finalized

in the   year 1978         cannot be disturbed in the year 2013,

notwithstanding any underlying clerical error. Therefore, the

reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment in Suman

Annasaheb Naykal (supra) does not lend any support to the case,

as it cannot override the binding principles of limitation and finality

of title established by the Division Bench.



21.          Furthermore,      the     infirmity     exists    regarding     the

maintainability of the original proceedings before the Authorities

below. The petitioners had raised a objection concerning the

maintainability      and   jurisdiction     of   the    action    brought     by

Respondent No. 1. The record indicates that Respondent No. 1

approached     the    authority   by      invoking     Section   247    of   the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.



22.          This Court finds that the Act of 1947 is a self-contained

statute. Chapter IV of the Act of 1947, which governs the

consolidation process, does not provide any provision for the
                                                      902 WP No.9059.2014
                                  -12-

revenue authorities to exercise appellate or revisional powers

under the MLR Code to overturn or vary an order rendered under

the Consolidation Act. Recourse to Section 247 or Section 257 of

the MLR Code was unavailable to the respondents to question the

implementation of a gazetted consolidation scheme.



23.         The Deputy Director of Land Records failed to deal with

the aspect of jurisdiction while exercising powers under the MLR

Code. The Authority below committed an error by assuming

jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Code to direct a variation of a

concluded consolidation scheme under Section 31A of the Act of

1947. The Settlement Commissioner or his subordinate delegates

have   no   authority   to   entertain   such   proceedings   after   an

unexplained delay of 30 years.



24.         In view of the aforesaid observations, the impugned

order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records ignores the

statutory fetters and suffers from a absence of jurisdiction. The

order under challenge is thus unsustainable. The writ petition,

therefore, deserves to be allowed. Hence, following order :-


                                ORDER

            (a)   Writ Petition is allowed.
                                                          902 WP No.9059.2014
                                     -13-


              (b)   The   judgment    and     order   dated    12.08.2014
              rendered by the Deputy Director of Land Records,
              Aurangabad    Division,       Aurangabad,   in    File   No.
              Consolidation/Appeal/SR-880/2013 is quashed and set
              aside.


              (c)   The order dated 28.03.2013 rendered by the
              District Inspector of Land Records, Nanded, dismissing
              the appeal of Respondent No. 1 stands restored.


              (d)   Rule is made absolute in the above terms.


              (e)   No order as to costs.



                                        (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)



Omkar Joshi