IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 WRIT PETITION NO. 9875 OF 2018 Parmeshwar Bapurao Naikwade And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Thigale Girish K. (Naik) AGP for Respondents-State: Ms. R. R. Tandale Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Ms. Rani Bharuka-Bora h/f Mr S. S. Bora ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : September 09, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The present petition is filed in order to challenge the order dated 31st May, 2018 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Beed. 2. The learned Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6 raises a preliminary objection that the order impugned is amenable to challenge in a revision under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner counters the preliminary objection by contending that the impugned order is passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 32 of the said Act, whereas the said power is vested with the Settlement Commissioner. Page 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:41554 901 WP 9875-2018 4. The learned Advocate draws attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Dagadu Rajaram Yede and Oth. vs. State of Maharashtra and Oth. (Review Application No. 33 of 2007), decided on 2nd March, 2010, and contends that powers under Section 31A of the Act have been delegated to the said authority, whereas powers under Section 32 are not so delegated. 5. Learned Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6, however, contends that although the operative order refers to Section 32 of the Act, in fact, action under Section 31A would also serve the purpose, since correction is sought in the scheme only on account of clerical error and accidental slip/omission. 6. The matter is remitted back to the District Superintendent of Land Records with directions to consider the application dated 07/11/2016 filed by respondent nos. 5 and 6 under Section 31A of the Act. 7. In case the authority finds that provisions of Section 32 are to be invoked for effecting the corrections as sought, the authority will not exercise the said power unless the said power is specifically delegated to it. Page 2 of 3 901 WP 9875-2018 8. All questions including issue of delay, laches and maintainability of the application under Section 31A are kept open. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed. 10. The impugned order dated 31/05/2018 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Beed, in Case No. CON/Appeal/S.R./306/2007 is quashed and set aside. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 3 of 3