Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N. J. Jamadar, J.
M/s. Aluwid Architectural Private Ltd & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Housabai Jagannath Gavhane & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12877 of 2022
Decided On : 04-10-2023
CONDONATION - LAND REVENUE - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 - The court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, particularly Section 247, and the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, specifically Sections 31A and 32. It highlighted that while Section 31A allows for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes without a time limit, such corrections must be made within a reasonable period, typically interpreted as three years. The court emphasized that the power to vary a consolidation scheme under Section 32 must also be exercised within a reasonable time, and the delay of over 50 years in this case was deemed excessive, leading to the conclusion that the Superintendent of Land Records acted beyond jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No. 1, Hausabai Gavhane, sought to correct the area of her agricultural land after discovering a clerical error in the land records that had persisted for over 50 years. She filed an application for condonation of delay in appealing against a mutation entry that inaccurately reflected her land's area. The Deputy Superintendent of Land Records condoned the delay, prompting the petitioners to challenge this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Superintendent of Land Records had exceeded his jurisdiction by condoning a delay of over 50 years without adhering to the principles governing the correction of consolidation schemes. The court held that the appeal's grounds indicated a substantive challenge to the consolidation scheme rather than a mere clerical correction, which could not be entertained after such a long period.
Issues: Whether the Superintendent of Land Records had the authority to condone a delay of over 50 years in preferring an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, and whether the application for correction fell under Section 31A or Section 32 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 31A and to vary a consolidation scheme under Section 32 must be exercised within a reasonable time, typically interpreted as three years. The court emphasized that allowing such corrections after an excessive delay undermines the stability of settled land rights and is legally unsustainable.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records was quashed and set aside, reaffirming that the delay in preferring the appeal was unjustifiable.
Key Points: - Power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 31A must be exercised within a reasonable time, typically three years (!) (!) (!) . - Power to vary a consolidation scheme under Section 32 must be exercised within a reasonable period, ordinarily three years from finalization (!) (!) (!) . - Delay of over 50 years in exercising correction or variation powers is excessive and renders the action legally unsustainable (!) (!) (!) . - The authority to condone delay in appealing under Section 247 cannot be used to indirectly vary a consolidation scheme (!) (!) . - A correction under Section 31A cannot be entertained after the lapse of a reasonable time, even if the request is framed as a clerical error (!) (!) . - The impugned order is legally unsustainable because it attempts to vary a scheme settled more than 50 years ago through an appeal against a mutation entry (!) (!) (!) . - The remedy for clerical or arithmetical mistakes lies exclusively with the Settlement Commissioner, not other revenue authorities (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. This Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 6th September, 2022, passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Pune on an application for condonation of delay in preferring an Appeal, purportedly under Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ('the Code, 1966'), whereby the Superintendent of Land Records was persuaded to condone the delay of more than 50 years in preferring the Appeal.
3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated in brief as under:-
a. Hausabai Gavhane, respondent No. 1, is the owner of agricultural land bearing Gat No.369 situated at Mauje Koregaon Bhima, Tal. Shirur, Dist. Pune, admeasuring 58 R. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 2a to 2e and 3 to 5 are the co-holders of the land bearing Gat No. 374 admeasuring 86 R. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 are the owners of the land bearing Gat No. 373 admeasuring 58 R.
b. Respondent No. 1 claims that Gat No. 369, 373 and 374 were originally numbered as Survey Nos. 124/4A, 124/4B and 124/4C. Each of the above survey numbers was admeasuring 1 acre and 24 Gunthas. However, when the Consolidation Scheme was implemented in the village Koregaon Bhima, area of the land bearing survey No. 124/4A was incorrectly shown as 87R and that of 124/4B and 124/4C was reduced to 57R only. In fact, there was a mistake on the part of the revenue authorities in carving out the Gat numbers out of the survey numbers on the basis of the Falnibara. Mutation Entry Nos 4584 and 4579 were wrongly certified on account of the arithmetical mistake in the conversion of the land from acre and gunthas into hectare and R. No area was added to or subtracted from any of the survey numbers in the Consolidation Scheme.
c. Respondent No. 1 continued to occupy and cultivate 68 R land throughout. It was only in the year 2012, respondent No. 1 realised that the incorrect area of the land was shown in the record of rights of Gat No. 369. Thereupon respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune to correct the record. By a communication dated 7th November, 2012, the District Superintendent Land Recordss informed the respondent No. 1 that the Consolidation Scheme had been fully implemented and, if desired, the respondent No. 1 can resort to the remedy of Appeal under Section 247 of the Code, 1966.
d. Respondent No. 1 preferred an application on 11th June, 2016 before the Settlement Commissioner, seeking rectification of the arithmetical mistake in the area of the land bearing Gat No. 369 (old Survey No.124/4C) under Section 31A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ('the Consolidation Act, 1947').
e. Vide communication dated 7th April, 2017, respondent No. 1 was informed that there was no defect in the Consolidation Scheme and third-party interests have been created in the land in the nature of non-agricultural use, sale, transfer and succession and, therefore, the application was disposed.
f. Respondent No. 1 preferred an Appeal under Section 247 of the Code, 1966, assailing the legality and correctness of ME No. 4584 dated 21st December, 1969. Since there was delay in preferring the Appeal, the respondent No. 1 preferred an application for condonation of delay.
g. In the application for condonation of delay, after adverting to the circumstances in which, according to respondent No. 1, an incorrect area was shown in the record of rights of Gat No. 369 by unjustifiably and unlawfully adding 10 R area each from Gat Nos. 369 and 373 to Gat No. 374, Respondent No. 1 asserted that she learnt about the mistake in mutating the area qua survey No. 369 in the year 2012 only. However, since the respondent No. 1 is an illiterate and rustic lady and had no knowledge about the procedur
AI
The court affirmed that the authority to correct or vary a consolidation scheme under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, must be exercised within a r....
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....
Delay in filing an appeal against consolidation orders must be satisfactorily explained; otherwise, the order is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction.
The court clarified that applications for correction of consolidation schemes must be filed within a reasonable time, typically three years, and that significant delays render such applications inval....
Variation of finalized consolidation scheme on error grounds barred after unreasonable delay; ordinarily three years from implementation, despite no statutory limit, as scheme attains finality with o....
The implementation of land consolidation schemes must strictly adhere to statutory provisions; failure renders any resultant claims invalid.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are reserved for Civil Courts.
Minister has jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Act to entertain appeals, even after delays, when assessing legality of prior orders; remands for inquiries on land titles following consolidation mu....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
