SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Bom) 513

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
R.M. SAVANT, J.
Bapu Gunda Mirje & Others
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through its Minister of State for Revenue Affairs & Others
Writ Petition No. 7586 of 2013
Decided On : 27-02-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Manoj Patil, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R4, R5, Pramod Kathane, R1 to R3, P.S. Cardozo, AGP.

Headnote:Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 -Section 32(1) Modification in consolidation scheme. - Even in absence of any time limit under Section 32 of Act for variation in scheme, application for modification in scheme made 33 years after implementation of scheme, not maintainable. It is well-settled that the issue of limitation is an issue relating to jurisdiction, in so far as the said issue is concerned, the same is no more res integra having been covered by the pronouncement of the two Division Benches of this Court in Gulabrao Kakades’s case and Dattu Patil’s case as also the pronouncement of the Single Judge of this Court in Ganpati Mali’s case. As indicated above the said Judgments lay down the proposition that though there is no time limit prescribed under Section 32 for variation of the scheme, the same should be done in a reasonable time.

       In the case of Gulabrao Kakade’s case variation was made after 15 years which the Division Bench found to be grossly unjustified. In so far as the Judgment in Dattu Patil’s case is concerned, the variation was sought after a period of 27 years which the Division Bench held cannot be said, to be a reasonable period. In so far as the case before the Single Judge is concerned i.e. Ganpati Mali’s case the variation sought was after a period of 18 years and therefore the Judge held that the said period by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be a reasonable period.

       In the instant case, as indicated above the correction was sought by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by the application made by them in the year 2003 i.e. almost after a period of 33 years. Hence applying the law laid down by this Court the Superintendent of Land Record did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application. If that be so, the order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records has been passed when he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. This is in so far as the jurisdictional aspect is concerned.

Judgment :

1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 7-8-2013 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for State for Revenue by which order, the Appeal filed by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein came to be allowed and resultantly the order dated 30-1-2013 passed by the Deputy Director Land Records, Pune Region, Pune, came to be set aside.

3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus:

4. The instant proceedings have arisen out of the application filed by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein being Revision Application No.523 of 2009 for re-measurement of Survey No.254/2 situated at Mouje Hingangaon (Shindewadi) Tal Kavthemahankal, Dist Sangli. By virtue of the said application the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were seeking modification in the Consolidation Scheme which has been implemented in the Village in question in the year 1970. The relief sought by way of the application filed by the said Respondents was that their names should recorded in respect of the land admeasuring 80 Ares in Survey No.254/2 situated at the said Village Hingangaon (Shindewadi). The application filed by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 therefore impinges upon the consolidation scheme relating to the land bearing Gat No.355 old Survey No.254/2 situated at Village Hingangaon (Shindewadi). It was the case of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the said 15 Gunthas was the excess land to which the Petitioners were not entitled to. It was the case of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the said land came to be wrongly entered in the name of the Petitioners in view of the fact that the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were not in the village on account of the exigencies of their employment. It was further the case of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 that they were not present when the statement were recorded by the consolidation officer and that in their absence the consent was recorded by the consolidation officer and thereafter the land in excess was recorded in the name of the Petitioners, the same was only on paper as the Respondents Nos.4 and 5 continued to be in possession and there was actually no change on the site. The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 therefore by the said application sought the relief that the District Superintendent of Land Records, Pune to transfer the land admeasuring 15 gunthas from Gat no.354 to 355 in the said village Hingangaon (Shindewadi). The Petitioners herein opposed the said application by filing their Written Statement. It was the case of the Petitioners that it is after scrutinizing the entire record that the mutation entry has been recorded. It was the case of the Petitioners in the Written Statement that the consolidation officer after the spot visit has prepared the record and has accordingly recorded the mutation entry No.5241 in the name of the Petitioners in respect of 97 Gunthas of land. It was the case of the Petitioners that a partition had taken place between their ancestors Kedari Mirje and Dnyanu Mirje. In so far as Kedari Mirje is concerned, in the said partition land 65 ares was allotted to Kedari Mirje and land admeasuring 96 ares was allotted to Dnyanu Mirje. The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 claimed through the said Kedari Mirje where as the Petitioners claimed through the said Dnyanu Mirje. It was further the case of the Petitioners that the parties had signed before the consolidation officer pursuant to which the guts were prepared in accordance with their possession. It was further the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were not entitled to the land admeasuring 80 Ares and since the inception the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to 65 Ares which they are in possession of. The Petitioners had also averred in the Written Statement that in view of the interference in their possession by the Respondent Nos.













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top