Point of Law : If there was any technical violation of the rules of natural justice, that was not a ground for interference, as such interference would result in resurrection of an illegal, nay, void order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the counsels for the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders dated 14th January 2019 and 29th July 2019, passed by the Minister (Revenue) in RTS-2818-P.K. 583/J-4A, whereby the Minister was persuaded to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, by the order dated 14th January 2019, and eventually allow the revision and set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Director, Land Records, Kokan Division, Mumbai-respondent No.2, ordering the modification of the scheme under section 32 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (‘the Consolidation Act, 1947’).

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts, can be stated as under :

(a) Kamlini Liladhar Kelkar, the predecessor-in-title of petitioner No.3-Liladhar Kelkar was the original holder of agriculture land bearing Gat No. 540, old survey No.51, admeasuring 4 H 58 R (‘the subject land’). Out of the said land, the deceased respondent No.23-Inayutulla Jalal purchased an area admeasuring 2H, 2 R from the original holder, in the year 1980. The petitioner No.2 purchased another parcel of land admeasuring 2 H, 2 R from the original holder on 21st September 1980. Still, 54R land remained with the original holder.

(b) In the Consolidation Scheme, notified in the year 1979, the old survey No.51 came to be divided into Gat Nos. 529, 530, 538, 540 and 561. Yet, the Tahasildar, Mangaon, by order dated 14th May 1987, granted Non-Agricultural use permission (N.A. permission) in respect of Survey No. 51, upon certain conditions to be complied with, by the holders of the subject land, without verifying the Consolidation Scheme. On the basis of the said N.A. permission, the respondent Nos. 5 to 22 and 24 to 28 purchased the plots, carved out from the subject land.

(c) Since, it transpired that the 54R land which remained with the original holder had been encroached upon, and the said portion of land did not find mention in the map of the said survey number. The petitioner No.3 and others made the grievances before the competent authorities. Measurement of the subject land was sought. As it transpired that there were defects in the Consolidation Scheme, on 23rd August 2012, the petitioner No.2, respondent No.23 and the other land holders, (respondent Nos.29 to 31 in this petition) submitted an application before the Deputy Director, Land Records-respondent No.2 seeking modification in the Consolidation Scheme, pointing out patent errors therein. The respondent No.2 invited objection. A draft notification of modification was published on 21st July 2014. Eventually, by the order dated 18th February 2015, the scheme was modified.

(d) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 18th February 2015, modifying the Consolidation Scheme, the respondent Nos.5 to 22 and 24 to 28 herein preferred a proceeding, purported to be an appeal, before the State Government. Since there was delay in preferring the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also preferred. The Minister (Revenue) construed the said proceeding to be a revision under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (‘the Code, 1966’) and allowed the same by quashing and setting aside draft notification of modification, dated 19th December 2014, and the order dated 18th February 2015, whereby and whereunder, the Consolidation Scheme was modified and the consequent orders of correction of the record of rights in respect of the subject land. Resultantly the N.A. permission dated 14th May 1987 and the map settled by the Deputy Superintendent, Mangaon, vide measurement register No. 264, came to be restored.

(e) Being aggrieved, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(f) Initially, the principal challenge, inter-alia, was that the Minister committed a man