Advocates:
['KASLIWAL AJIT D', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'R D KAWADE', 'CVTR', 'KAWADE RAMRAJE D', 'GP', 'PATHAN HAMZAKHAN I', 'R/ SERVED', 'WP DISMISSED AGAINST R']

1 wp 6886.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6886 OF 2014

Sampat Fulsing Chandanse died

through L.Rs. Pratapsing Sampat

Chandanse

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others

.. Respondents

Shri Ajit D. Kasliwal, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri P. N. Kutti, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

Shri H. I. Pathan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 to 10.

Shri R. D. Kawade, Advocate for the Respondent No. 11.

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

DATE : 22ND MARCH, 2016.

PER COURT :

.

Mr. Kasliwal, the learned counsel submits that, the

District Superintendent of Land Records, Aurangabad exercising

its powers U/Sec. 31-A of the Maharashtra Prevention of

Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short

"Consolidation Act") passed the order thereby directing to

prepare corrigendum and to send it for approval/sanction. The

said order was challenged before the Deputy Director of Land

Records, Aurangabad by filing an appeal purportedly U/Sec. 247

of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. According to the

learned counsel the appeal was not tenable at all.

2 wp 6886.14

2.

Mr. Pathan, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 10

submits that, the S. L. R. wrongly exercised its powers U/Sec. 31-

A of the Consolidation Act. The order passed by the S. L. R. itself

was without jurisdiction, as such the appeal was filed U/Sec. 247

of the M. L. R. Code. The petitioner has remedy to file revision

against the said order.

3.

Mr. Kawade, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 11

also submits that, the orders passed are without jurisdiction.

4.

I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader

also.

5.

The order passed by the District Superintendent of Land

Records, Aurangabad dated 18.02.2014 in vernacular language

reads as under :

1-

vfiykfFkZ ;kaps vfiy vekU; dj.;kr ;sr vkgs-

2-

mi v/kh{kd Hkwfe vfHkys[k vkSjaxkckn ;kauh

fnukad 20@03@2012 jksth ,df=dj.k dk;nk lu

1947 dk;nk dye 31&v vUo;s izLrkfor

dsysys 'kq/nhi=d] fu;eckg; vlyseqGs

,df=dj.k iqohZP;k 7@12 izek.ks loZs uacjpk esG

?ksowu dzekad 2 (eqG vfiykfFkZ) ;kaps ukokus

eqacbZpk /kkj.k tehuhps rqdMs ikM.;kl izfrca/k

dj.;kckcr o R;kaps ,df=dj.k dj.;kckcr

vf/kfu;e] 1947 ef/ky rjrqn dk;nk dye

31&v izek.ks 'kq/nkhi=d r;kj d#u eatqjhLro

lknj dj.ksckcr vknsf'kr dj.ksr ;sr vkgs-

3 wp 6886.14

3-

lnj izdj.kh dks.kR;kgh l{ke @ fnok.kh

U;k;ky;kr nkok izyafcr vlY;kl ek-

U;k;ky;kP;k varhe fu.kZ;kP;k v/khu jkgwu

lnj vkns'k ikjhr dj.;kr ;sr vkgs-

4-

[kpkZckcr vkns'k ukghr-

5-

lnj fu.kZ;kph ys[kh let loZ lacf/krkauk ns.ksr

;koh-

6.

It is manifest that the S. L. R. exercised the powers U/Sec.

31-A of the Consolidation Act. Against the said order certainly

appeal is not provided under the Consolidation Act. Whether

said order is rightly passed or not, I am not considering the

same, for the reason that the appeal filed against the said order

U/Sec. 247 of the M. L. R. Code would not be tenable. The

Consolidation Act does not provide the remedy of appeal. The

respondents herein ought to have challenged the said order as

provided under the Consolidation Act.

7.

In the light of the above, the order passed by the Deputy

Director of Land Records invoking powers U/Sec. 247 of the M. L.

R. Code was certainly improper and without jurisdiction.

8.

Though the said order is without jurisdiction, present

respondents are required to be given opportunity to challenge the

order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records.

9.

Considering the above, I pass following order.

4 wp 6886.14

10.

The impugned order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the Deputy

Director of Land Records in Appeal No. 903 of 2014 is quashed

and set aside. Th