69 WP No.5840.2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5840 OF 2014 RAMRAO BHAURAO RATHOD AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS *** Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. D. Patil Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. V. D. Gunale Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sachin S. Panale *** WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2928 OF 2026 IN WP/5840/2014 GULAB KISAN KADAM VERSUS RAMRAO BHAURAO RATHOD AND OTHERS *** Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sachin S. Panale WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7936 OF 2014 SHAMSUNDAR VAIJNATH KADAM AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHRIRANG VYANKAT KADAM AND OTHERS *** Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. V. D. Salunke AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. D. Patil Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis *** CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. Date : 27th August, 2026 2026:BHC-AUG:40219 69 WP No.5840.2014 -2- ORDER :- 1. Since the issues raised and the challenged order in both these writ petitions are common, the same are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 5840 of 2014 is treated as the lead petition. 2. The petitions challenge the judgment and order dated 04.03.2014 rendered by the Hon’ble State Minister (Revenue), Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai in Appeal No. 2013/Pra.Kra- 341-J-7A, allowing the revision application presented by Shrirang S/o Venkat Kadam (Respondent No. 3 in WP No. 5840 of 2014 and Respondent No. 1 in WP No. 7936 of 2014) and set aside the order dated 11.03.2013 rendered by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad. 3. The land in question, situated at village Wanjarkheda, Taluka and District Latur, were subject to a consolidation scheme under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The scheme was finalized and implemented in the year 1974. At the time of implementation, the original landholders mutually agreed upon the distribution and allocation of shares and executed a signed consent statement before the 69 WP No.5840.2014 -3- Consolidation Authorities on 24.01.1974. Revenue records and maps were prepared based on this consensual distribution. Following the same, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5840 of 2014 purchased portions of Gat No. 184 through registered sale deeds on 27.12.1985 and have been in possession. 4. However, on 30.10.2012, after a lapse of nearly 38 years, Respondent No. 3 presented an application before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, seeking a correction of the area and revenue maps of old Survey Nos. 80 and 81 (now Gat Nos. 182 to 186). An area of 1H-28R had been recorded in favor of other sharers during consolidation. On 11.03.2013, the Deputy Director of Land Records rejected the application, holding that the boundaries were settled by mutual consent in the year 1974 and the challenge was barred by limitation. 5. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No. 3 presented a revision before the Hon’ble State Minister (Revenue), who allowed the application and directed the Authorities to modify the 7/12 extracts and maps to reflect actual possession. This order is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 69 WP No.5840.2014 -4- 6. Mr. Salunke and Mr. Rathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the consolidation scheme attained finality in the year 1974 with the consent of the original owners. A settled scheme cannot be reopened after 38 years, especially when third- party rights have been created through registered sales in the year 1985. The counsel further submitted that any application for variation must be made within a reasonable timeframe. As such, the order rendered by the Hon’ble Minister order is illegal and unsustainable. As such, prayed to allow the petitions. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondents supported the order rendered by the Minister. The Respondent No. 3 is losing a major portion of ancestral land due to a clerical mistake during the measurements for Hissa Form No. 4. Revenue records must align with actual possession and cultivation, which is directed by the Hon’ble Minister. 8. The learned AGP for the State supports the order and submits that the consolidation procedures were followed in the year 1974 and as such, prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for litigating sides and perusing the material on record, the issue falls for 69 WP No.5840.2014 -5- consideration is whether a finalized consolidation scheme can be reopened after nearly four decades. Section 19 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, provides a specific statutory period of 30 days for raising objections against a published scheme. 10. It is an admitted fact that the original predecessors-in- title executed a written consent statement on 24.01.1974. No objection was raised by anyone at that time or for 38 years thereafter. It is a well-settled principle of law, laid down by this Court in Gunda Tuka Shinde vs. Pandharinath Ramrao Shinde [1991 (1) Mh.L.J. 669] that the statutory powers to vary a consolidation scheme cannot be exercised after an unreasonable delay, particularly when third-party interests have intervened. Allowing modifications after such a long time introduces severe complications into the settled titles of subsequent bona fide purchasers who have been in possession for decades. 11. Moreover, a perusal of the order under challenge dated 04.03.2014 indicates that the Hon'ble Minister failed to consider the question of limitation and delay in its proper perspective. The order is inconsistent and ambiguous, since it directs corrections simultaneously based on "actual possession," "Hissa Form No. 4," 69 WP No.5840.2014 -6- and "Phalani-12" without identifying where the specific error lies or ascertaining the impacts of the scheme implemented in the year 1974. Such order is unsustainable. 12. It is pertinent to note that the Deputy Director of Land Records had rightly rejected the application on 11.03.2013 regarding the same as delayed one. However, the Hon’ble Minister committed an error while reversing the said decision. Therefore, both writ petitions needs to be allowed. Hence, following order :- ORDER (i) Writ Petition No. 5840 of 2014 and Writ Petition No. 7936 of 2014 are allowed. (ii) The judgment and order dated 04.03.2014 passed by the Hon’ble State Minister (Revenue), Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai in File No. 2013/Pra.Kra-341-J-7A is quashed and set aside. (iii) The order dated 11.03.2013 rendered by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, rejecting the modification application of Respondent No. 3, stands restored. (iv) No order as to costs. (v) Resultantly, pending civil applications also stand disposed of. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) Omkar Joshi