Minister's power under S.35 of Consolidation Act akin to superintendence, not barred by limitation if original order is perverse: Bombay HC - 2025-07-29

Bombay High Court Upholds Minister's Order to Re-examine Flawed Land Record Correction

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling on land record disputes, has upheld a State Minister's decision to quash a "perverse and arbitrary" order by a Superintendent of Land Record (SLR). The Court affirmed the Minister's supervisory jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, even when exercised after a significant delay, to rectify a fundamentally flawed inquiry.

Justice Shailesh P. Brahme, presiding over the Aurangabad bench, dismissed a writ petition challenging the Minister's intervention in a long-standing property dispute over eight acres of land in Osmanabad district. The court found that the SLR's 2011 order, which purported to correct a "clerical error" in the consolidation scheme, was passed without proper inquiry, overlooked crucial records, and failed to answer the specific issue referred to it by a civil court.

---

Background of the Decades-Long Dispute

The case originates from a civil suit (RCS No. 105/1995) filed by the petitioners (heirs of Saifan Hussain Nadaf), who claimed that eight acres of their land from Gat No. 17 were erroneously added to the respondents' (heirs of Maheboob Fakru Nadaf) Gat No. 19 during a land consolidation scheme.

After initial litigation, an appellate court in 2003 remanded the case, directing the trial court to refer a specific issue to the competent authority under the Consolidation Act. The issue was:

"Whether the plaintiff proves that his land has been converted into block no.17 and he is owner of area 10 acres instead of area 76R on the basis of old record survey number?"

Following this, the SLR passed an order on February 9, 2011, ostensibly under Section 31A of the Act, sanctioning a correction in favor of the petitioners. This led to subsequent civil court decrees upholding their claim. However, the respondents challenged the SLR's 2011 order before the State Minister in 2019, after a delay of nearly eight years. The Minister condoned the delay, quashed the SLR's order, and remanded the matter for a fresh, comprehensive inquiry. The petitioners then challenged the Minister's order in the present writ petition.

---

Arguments Before the High Court

• Petitioners' Arguments: The petitioners argued that the Minister lacked jurisdiction, especially after such an inordinate delay. They contended that the appeal was wrongly entertained under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and that the Minister improperly decided the delay application and the merits simultaneously. They also alleged that the respondents had suppressed the fact that civil courts had ruled against them.

• Respondents' Arguments: The respondents defended the Minister's order, arguing it was necessary to correct a grave injustice. They submitted that the SLR's 2011 order was passed without hearing all legal heirs of the deceased party and was based on a flawed premise. They presented revenue records suggesting the petitioners' claim to the original land (Survey No. 13/A) was false, as the survey numbers were not adjacent and belonged to different owners. They argued the SLR's order was a product of "fraud and misrepresentation."

---

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

Justice Brahme systematically addressed the legal issues, making several critical observations:

On the Minister's Jurisdiction and Delay

The Court held that the Minister correctly exercised supervisory powers under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act, which allows the State Government to examine the legality or propriety of any order passed by a subordinate officer. The judgment noted that this section does not prescribe a limitation period.

"The State Government is empowered to examine any order passed by the Sub-ordinate Officer. These powers are akin to Superintending powers... Mentioning of Section 257 of the MLR Code in the impugned judgment is inconsequential because order did not emanate from the proceedings under Land Revenue Code. It’s trite law that wrong mentioning of provision does not vitiate order."

The Court justified the condonation of the nearly eight-year delay, noting that the petitioners had not filed a formal objection and that the original 2011 order was so fundamentally flawed that it warranted examination on merits.

On the Flawed Inquiry by the Land Record Superintendent

The judgment heavily criticized the SLR's 2011 order, deeming it "cryptic and perverse," "misconceived, arbitrary and patently illegal." The Court found that the SLR had:

1. Failed to Answer the Referred Issue: Instead of conducting a proper inquiry into the pre- and post-consolidation land holdings as directed by the civil court, the SLR erroneously invoked powers under Section 31A to correct a supposed "clerical error" without providing any reasoning.

2. Overlooked Vital Records: The SLR ignored crucial evidence like Yojana patrak , mutation entries, and Hissa Forms, which prima facie contradicted the petitioners' claim.

3. Violated Natural Justice: The inquiry was conducted without ensuring all legal heirs of the deceased respondent were served and heard.

"The issue referred by the trial Court for conducting inquiry remained unanswered, obviously because no exercise was undertaken for verification of the old record... The enquiry undertaken by the Superintendent is thoroughly uncalled for and misconceived. It reflects non-application of mind and it has led to complication."

---

Final Decision and Direction

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the Minister's decision to remand the matter. However, the court modified the issue to be decided by the SLR to ensure clarity and precision.

The Court directed the Superintendent of Land Record, Dharashiv, to conduct a fresh inquiry and return findings on the modified issue:

“what are the constituents survey numbers of land gut Nos. 17 and 19 and what is their total area before and after the implementation of the consolidation scheme ?”

The parties were directed to appear before the SLR on August 7, 2025, with the inquiry to be completed within three months. The interim relief was extended for three weeks.