{1}

wp103-14

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.103 OF 2014

1.

Lakshman s/o Dashrath Wakle

PETITIONERS

Age – Major, Occ – Agriculture

2.

Rameshwar s/o Dashrath Wakle,

Age – Major, Occ – Agriculture

Both R/o At Beduk-Chi-Wadi,

Po : Pimpalner, Taluka and District – Beed

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra

RESPONDENTS

Through Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai

2.

Dy. Director of Land Records, Aurangabad

3.

Dy. Superintendent Land Records Office, Beed

4.

Shahabai s/o Vishwanath Pawar

Age – Major, Occ – Agriculture

5.

Mahadev s/o Vishwanath Pawar

Age – Major, Occ – Agriculture

6.

Kashinath s/o Vishwanath Pawar

Age – Major, Occ – Agriculture

Respondents No. 4 to 6 R/o At Beduk-chi-Wadi

Po : Pimpalner, Taluka & District - Beed

.......

Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for the petitioners

Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for respondent - State

Mr. S. S. Jangada h/f Mr. S. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for R-6

.......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

{2}

wp103-14

DATE : 16

^th NOVEMBER, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the appearing parties.

2.

This petition takes exception to order dated 4^th October,

2013 passed by Hon’ble Minister for Revenue, State of

Maharashtra, thereby partly allowing appeal of respondents No.

4 to 6.

3.

In the year 1976, consolidation scheme was implemented,

in which lands were exchanged between the petitioners’ father

and respondent No.4 by mutual consent. Father of the

petitioners and respondent No. 4 and others, whose lands were

consolidated, have signed document, wherein they have agreed

to form the blocks as set out therein and lands survey No. 63/5

and 63/9 belonging to the petitioners’ father was exchanged with

lands survey No. 63/1, 63/3A (Part) and 67/2 of respondent

No.4. Accordingly, orders were passed by the Consolidation

Officer and Settlement Commissioner under the provisions of the

Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of

Holdings Act, 1947 (for short “the said Act”). Petitioners’ father

and respondent No. 4 were put into the possession of their

{3}

wp103-14

respective lands after consolidation and possession receipts were

accordingly issued.

4.

By filing application dated 5^th December, 2006 before

respondent No. 2, respondent No.4, challenged consolidation

scheme / proceedings, contending that she got less share in the

land in the consolidation scheme of 1976-77.

Respondent No. 2 rejected the said application filed by

respondent No. 4 holding that as per section 19 (1) of the said

Act, complaint / objection has to be lodged within thirty days

from the date of publication of the consolidation scheme,

however, respondent No. 4 failed to do so, hence, her application

/ complaint is not within limitation. It is further held that

Bombay High Court in “Gunda Tuka Shinde V/s Pandharinath

Ramrao Shinde and Another” and “Krushna Bhallu Sindgoda V/s

Settlement Commissioner and Director Lands Records” has held

that after consolidation scheme is published under section 19 (1)

of the said Act, objections should be raised within thirty days and

if no such objection is raised within stipulated time, then the

objection lodged after some years need not be entertained.

Respondent No. 2 rejected the said application of respondent No.

4 on these grounds.

{4}

wp103-14

5.

Respondent No. 4, thereafter, filed revision petition No.

345 of 2007, before Hon’ble Minister for Revenue, challenging

decision of respondent No. 2. The revision came to be partly

allowed by order dated 4^th October, 2013 and the matter was

remanded back to respondent No. 2 to take action in terms of

section 31 (1) of the said Act. This order is impugned in present

petition.

6.

Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learned