Bombay High Court

PARMESHWAR BAPURAO NAIKWADE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The order dated 31 May 2018 is quashed because the District Superintendent of Land Records lacks delegated authority under Section 32 and must consider the correction under Section 31A.

Summary

The petitioners challenged an order dated 31 May 2018 issued by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Beed, alleging that the Superintendent acted beyond his statutory authority under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the order could be reviewed under Section 35 of the Act, while the petitioners argued that the Superintendent had no power under Section 32, which is vested in the Settlement Commissioner. The court examined a prior judgment (Dagadu Rajaram Yede v. State of Maharashtra) and noted that powers under Section 31A may be delegated, but Section 32 powers are not. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Superintendent to consider the application under Section 31A, and the court held that the Superintendent could not invoke Section 32 unless expressly delegated. All ancillary issues, including delay and laches, were left open. The petition was partly allowed and the impugned order was quashed and set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the District Superintendent of Land Records has the statutory power to correct land records under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
Whether the order is amenable to revision under Section 35 of the same Act.
Whether the correction sought can be made under Section 31A of the Act in the absence of delegated power under Section 32.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 — s. 31A, 32, 35

Subjects

Land records
Statutory power
Delegation of authority
Section 31A
Section 32
Section 35
Quashing order
Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41554


                      IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           901 WRIT PETITION NO. 9875 OF 2018

                          Parmeshwar Bapurao Naikwade And Another
                                             VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                                ...
                     Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Thigale Girish K. (Naik)
                          AGP for Respondents-State: Ms. R. R. Tandale
                Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Ms. Rani Bharuka-Bora h/f Mr S. S.
                                              Bora
                                                ...

                                 CORAM       : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                 Dated       : September 09, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.      The present petition is filed in order to challenge the order dated

           31st May, 2018 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records,

           Beed.



           2.      The learned Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6 raises a

           preliminary objection that the order impugned is amenable to

           challenge in a revision under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Prevention

           of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.



           3.      The learned Advocate for the petitioner counters the preliminary

           objection by contending that the impugned order is passed by the

           District Superintendent of Land Records purportedly in exercise of

           powers under Section 32 of the said Act, whereas the said power is

           vested with the Settlement Commissioner.

                                              Page 1 of 3
                                                          901 WP 9875-2018




4.    The learned Advocate draws attention to the judgment of this

Court in the case of Dagadu Rajaram Yede and Oth. vs. State of

Maharashtra and Oth. (Review Application No. 33 of 2007),

decided on 2nd March, 2010, and contends that powers under

Section 31A of the Act have been delegated to the said authority,

whereas powers under Section 32 are not so delegated.



5.    Learned Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6, however,

contends that although the operative order refers to Section 32 of

the Act, in fact, action under Section 31A would also serve the

purpose, since correction is sought in the scheme only on account of

clerical error and accidental slip/omission.



6.    The matter is remitted back to the District Superintendent of

Land Records with directions to consider the application dated

07/11/2016 filed by respondent nos. 5 and 6 under Section 31A of

the Act.



7.    In case the authority finds that provisions of Section 32 are to

be invoked for effecting the corrections as sought, the authority will

not exercise the said power unless the said power is specifically

delegated to it.



                                 Page 2 of 3
                                                                    901 WP 9875-2018



8.       All   questions   including      issue   of     delay,    laches     and

maintainability of the application under Section 31A are kept open.



9.       In view of the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed.



10.      The impugned order dated 31/05/2018 passed by the District

Superintendent        of    Land    Records,      Beed,       in    Case       No.

CON/Appeal/S.R./306/2007 is quashed and set aside.




                                                       ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )




vj gawade/-.




                                    Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…