The implementation of land consolidation schemes must strictly adhere to statutory provisions; failure renders any resultant claims invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Sachin S. Deshmukh, J.

Objection is raised in the present petition to the order rendered by Secretary and Special Executive Officer (Appeal) of Revenue and Forest Department, allowing the appeal of the respondents.

2. In respect of village Pathri, Tehsil – Phulambri, District – Aurangabad, is concerned, the consolidation scheme was implemented in the year 1968. Petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land bearing original survey no. 21/1 admeasuring 2 Acre 9 Guntha, which is the ancestral property of the petitioner.

3. On the strength of the consolidation scheme enforced in the village, the Consolidation Officer effected the mutation entry no. 418 dated 07.02.1968. In the process, the land of the petitioner was re-numbered as gat nos. 47 and 48 admeasuring 2 Acre and 0.09 Are, respectively. Gut no. 48 originally was measured 0.09 Are, was erroneously recorded as 0.06 Are and was eventually re-numbered as survey no. 21/1/48.

4. Although, this correction was effected, however, not notified. Consequently, the petitioner had no occasion to know that clerical error had occurred during the process of consolidation scheme.

5. In an attempt to take undue advantage of this clerical mistake, respondents no. 1 to 5, for first time, presented an application on 30.12.2011. In response thereto, a notice was served upon the petitioner on 29.09.2012 informing that the measurement had been carried out and completed on 13.04.2012.

6. While deciding this application, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records upheld the claim of the respondents no. 1 to 5 in relation to the correction of area of survey no. 21/1 and submitted a report to that effect. In the process, the statements were also recorded. The office of the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, by its communication dated 10.04.2013, informed that although survey no. 21/1 is put to division, to gat no. 47 and 48, however, the land parcel was not put to actual division.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Superintendent of Land Records, rejected the application of the petitioner on the solitary ground that the scheme was implemented in the village prior to 42 years and the only clerical mistake, as contemplated under section 31A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter “the Act of 1947”) could be corrected. It was further held that no correction can be effected in relation to section 32(1) of the Act of 1947, therefore, the application of the petitioner being time barred, was rejected.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records. While allowing the appeal of the petitioner, it was held that survey no. 21/1, originally measuring 2 Acre 9 Guntha belonging to the forefather of the petitioner, although was divided into gat no. 47 and 48. The respondents had no concern with the divided gat no. 48 and in the consolidation scheme, the names were wrongly recorded.

9. The respondents failed to submit sufficient evidence supporting such an entry. The recording of respondents names in gat no. 48, was regarded as a clerical mistake. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Superintendent of Land Records was quashed and set aside directing deletion of the name of the respondents from survey no. 21/A ademasuring 0.09 Are (re-numbered as gat no. 48) be deleted taking recourse to section 31A of the Act of 1947 and necessary corrigendum was issued on 05.06.2013.

10. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Land Records, respondents no. 1 to 5 preferred an appeal before respondent no. 6. While allowing the appeal, respondent no. 6 held that the consolidation scheme was implemented in the village in the year 1968, necessary objection ought to have been raised within a period of three years following same principle, even the clerical error cannot be corrected, under section 31A of the Act of 1947, after three years, as such, allowed the appeal. Respondent no. 6 ev