1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6213 OF 2024 Bhimgir Hiragir Giri And Others .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary and Others .. Respondents ….. Shri. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for the Petitioners Shri. S. M. Ganachari, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State. Shri. A. S. Londhe, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Ms. S. G. Chincholkar, Advocate for Respondent No.7 ….. CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. RESERVED ON : JULY 15, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 27, 2026 FINAL ORDER :- . Impugned in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, in File No./AKTRI/APPEAL/S.R.3018/2022 allowing the Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, ‘Code’). 2. The subject matter is the property admeasuring 7-Acres, 16- Gunthas (2-Hectares, 99-Ares) out of total area admeasuring 22-Acres, 8-Gunthas (8-Hectares, 97-Ares) from Survey No.68 situated at 2026:BHC-AUG:31045 2 Maliwadgaon, Tal. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. The said property was initially owned by one Mr. Aasarugir. The same was transferred to his legal heirs. The Consolidation Scheme was implemented in the year 1969. The said survey number was divided in Gut Nos.209, 210 and 211. The names of the ancestors of the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.3 to 7 were recorded in the land records since 1969. The names of the legal heirs also came to be mutated in the land records. No grievance was raised by any of the parties in respect of the above. Respondent No.3 moved an Application dated 23.02.2023 for correction in the mutation entries and in the consolidation proceedings. Respondent No.2 – Deputy Superintendent of Land Records by communication dated 10.05.2023 informed Respondent No.3 that, there was no mistake in the Consolidation Scheme which was implemented in the year 1969 and directed to file the Appeal under Section 247 of the Code. Accordingly, Respondent No.3 filed the above referred Appeal on 03.07.2023 along with the Application for condonation of delay. Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 opposed the said Application by filing say. By the impugned order, the District Superintendent of Land Records, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, allowed the Application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Advocates for Respondent 3 Nos.3 and 7. With their assistance, perused the papers on record. A) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners that, undisputedly, the Consolidation Scheme was implemented long back in the year 1969. After a long period of more than 54 years, the Respondent no.3 filed the Application for correction in the Consolidation Scheme and mutation entries. Different reasons for delay are given by the Respondent No.3 in the Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal and the Application before the Authority which directed to file Appeal. The Application for condonation of delay which is allowed by the Appellate Authority do not provide any sufficient reasons to condone the delay. The Appellate Authority without considering the insufficiency of reasons, allowed the Application by discussing merits of the matter. The Appellate Authority exceeded it’s jurisdiction by commenting on the aspect of the partition which falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The impugned order is unsustainable in law and the same be quashed and set aside and Petition be allowed. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and one another filed Regular Civil Suit No.418/2025 for perpetual injunction in respect of the subject property which came to be dismissed by the Judgment and order dated 04.04.2026. In support of his submissions, he relied on the Judgments in (a) Dattu Appa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (6) AIR BOM R 388, (b) Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others vs. Balasaheb 4 Tukaram Shevale and Others, 2009 DGLS (SC) 1654, (c) Jalindar Sadashiv Hirde and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [2018 (4) Mh.L.J. 200]. B) It is submitted by the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that, the Reply Affidavit is filed. He submitted that, pursuant to the communication by Respondent No.2, the Appeal came to be preferred by Respondent No.3. The Appellate Authority passed the impugned order after hearing the parties and on the basis of the evidence available on record, in exercise of the powers vested in the Appellate Authority. No interference is called for in the impugned order and the Petition be dismissed. C) It is submitted by the learned Advocates for Respondent Nos.3 and 7 that, the cause of filing the Appeal was the said communication dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2. There is Government Circular dated 17.03.2004 which provides for the mechanism to raise grievance in respect of any dispute in the consolidation proceedings. Accordingly, the Application was moved by the Respondent No.3. The case of the Respondent No.3 was covered by the said Government Circular. The partition between the parties had already taken place. By effecting the corrections in the record, the Petitioners would also be benefited. Considering the provisions of the Code, there was in fact no delay. The Appellate Authority has rightly considered the matter and 5 passed the impugned order and no interference is called for in the same and the Petition be dismissed. (a) In Dattu (supra), the challenge in the Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was to the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records, Pune. The Consolidation Scheme framed under the Bombay (Maharashtra) Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 was applied to the Village Asurle in 1962. The lands bearing Survey Nos.25/6 and 25/7 were dealt with under the said Act and the exchange of lands took place in 1962 by mutual consent. The original owners / allottees of the lands died. Their legal heirs went in litigation. The Respondent No.3 therein made complaint to the Settlement Commissioner that the exchange of lands done in the year 1962 during the Consolidation proceedings was illegal and without consent of his father and prayed that the Consolidation of lands be cancelled and the Consolidation Scheme be verified to restore him back the land which had originally belonged to his father at the time of preparation of the Consolidation Scheme. The enquiry was conducted by the concerned Officer and notices were issued to the Petitioner proposing variation in the Consolidation Scheme. The Petitioner filed objections to the said notice and requested that the proposed variation should not be effected. By the order / communication by the Respondent No.2 therein it was 6 informed to the Petitioner that as per the complaint of Respondent No.3, the Consolidation Scheme was varied. The challenge was raised to the said order in the revision which came to be dismissed. The impugned orders were set aside on the ground of delay.’ It was further observed that, ‘the Consolidation Scheme was applied to the village in the year 1962 and the lands were exchanged by consent of the parties in the year 1962 after recording statements of the parties, possession receipts were executed and changes were introduced in the revenue records and parties continued to cultivate their respective allotted lands and the arrangement was accepted by the parties without any demur. The father of Respondent No.3 was alive till 1988, did not made any complaint about any fraud having been committed and it was only in the year 1989 that Respondent No.3 for the first time made an application for variation which was after about 27 years’. It was further observed that, ‘the Settlement Commissioner erred in exercising his powers under Section 32 (1) of the said Act effecting variation in the Scheme. Period of 27 years can certainly not be called reasonable period. Besides, serious allegations of fraud could not have been decided by him in such a manner’. It was further observed in the light of the earlier decisions that, ‘exercise of powers by Settlement Commissioner after about 27 years was totally unjustified and on that count alone the impugned orders were to be set aside’. 7 (b) In Santoshkumar (supra), ‘the question for consideration in the Appeal by special leave was whether power of revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 can be exercised at any time although no time was prescribed for exercise of such power.’ It was observed that, ‘Section 21 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 would reveal that, although no period of limitation was prescribed, therefore, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. It is trite that, if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors’. It was further observed that, ‘it was fairly well settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional powers, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time’. It was further observed that, ‘Ordinarily, the reasonable period within which power of revision would be three years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.’ (c) In Jalindar (supra), the issue for consideration was, ‘whether Section 31-A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act which does not prescribe any limitation, 8 would permit a competent authority to entertain an application for modification in the Scheme beyond a particular period?’. It was observed that, ‘it requires no debate that Section 31-A of the said Act does not prescribe any limitation. However, the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade vs. Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare and others, 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 31 has concluded that after taking into account the various provisions of the 1947 Act, a prayer for correction in the scheme only to be done by the Settlement Commissioner, can be permitted within a reasonable period. While dealing with the facts in the Gulabrao’s case (supra), it was concluded that when the Consolidation Scheme was finalized in 1973, ordinarily, exercising the power under Section 31-A, after three (3) years, may not be permissible and justified under Section 32. In the said case, the Scheme was settled in 1970. The parties were in possession of their respective lands. After 43 years from the Consolidation Scheme, the Respondent No.5 therein was intended to replace the name of LRs of one Mahadu and others with his name. The Petition was allowed.’ 4. Coming to the case at hand, undisputedly the Consolidation Scheme was implemented in the year 1969 at village Maliwadgaon, Tal. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad, wherein the subject lands are situated. It is further not in dispute that, pursuant to the implementation of the Consolidation Scheme, the names of the respective parties came to be mutated in the relevant records. No grievance or dispute was raised by 9 any of the parties existing at the relevant time. For the first time on 23.02.2023 the Respondent No.3 submitted the Application under the provisions of Section 32 (1) of the Bombay (Maharashtra) Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the said Act’) contending that, after implementation of the Consolidation Scheme, less area of land was shown against the name of his father - Waman Bisanbuwa Giri and prayed for necessary correction in the relevant records of Survey No.68 at Mauje Maliwadgaon, Tal. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. With the said Application, the separate contention in respect of delay was submitted with the reason that, his father was not given the notice prior to implementation of Consolidation Scheme and he (Respondent No.3) was residing at different station due to his service and therefore, the Application could not be made on earlier occasion. The District Superintendent of Land Records by communication dated 10.05.2023 informed the Respondent No.3 that, after going through the relevant documents it was seen that, prior to consolidation of lands under Survey No.68 the measurement was done and thereafter necessary entries came to be made showing the extent of land against the respective persons and there was no irregularity or error in implementation of the Scheme. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3 filed the Appeal before the Superintendent of Land Records for correction in the entries, which were made pursuant to the Consolidation Scheme, with Application for condonation of delay giving the reasons that, he 10 learnt that the implementation of Consolidation Scheme was not properly implemented in respect of the said Survey No.68 and thereafter the necessary documents were collected and the Appeal was filed. It was further contended that, his father was illiterate and no notice was issued by the concerned office to his father prior to implementation of the Scheme. The contention of delay was prayed. 5. The provisions of Section 31-A of the said Act permits correction only of clerical and arithmetical mistake in the Scheme. Undisputedly, the Application filed by the Respondent No.3 is not under the said provision. He filed the Application under Section 32 of the said Act which provides for the powers with the Settlement Commissioner to vary scheme on ground of error, irregularity or informality. The impugned order goes to show that, the District Superintendent of Land Records instead of examining as to whether there were sufficient reasons or grounds put forth by Respondent No.3 in support of his Application for condonation of delay, examined the merits of the matter and observed that, it was necessary to make equal shares in the subject land. The impugned order goes to show that, the Authority which passed the impugned order almost decided the Appeal without getting itself satisfied as to whether the reasons for delay were sufficient or not. Undisputedly, invocation of provisions of Section 32(1) of the said Act by the Respondent No.3 was after a period of 54 years. The period is 11 much more than the reasonable period. In the light of the above referred settled legal position, exercise of the powers under Section 32 of the said Act by the Superintendent of Land Records will not stand the scrutiny of law. Whereas the earlier communication dated 10.05.2023 by the District Superintendent of Land Records shows that, there was no error, irregularity or informality in implementation of the Scheme for the subject land. The reasons put forth by Respondent No.3 for delay in filing the Application / Appeal can in no case be said to be sufficient so as to permit the invocation of the powers under the said Act after a period of 54 years. 6. As far as the Government Circular dated 17.03.2004 annexed to the Petition is concerned, it is in respect of expeditious disposal of the Applications for corrections in the shares determined while implementing the Consolidation Scheme. The said Circular also discourages the delayed complaints in respect of correction in the entries taken at the time of implementation of the Consolidation Scheme. Undisputedly, the mutation in the relevant records in respect of the subject land is done pursuant to the Consolidation Scheme. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said Circular would be of no assistance to the Petitioners. 7. Thus, examining the impugned order in the light of the above 12 referred legal position it is liable to be quashed and set aside and the Application filed by the Respondent No.3 is liable to be rejected. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in File No./AKTRI/APPEAL/SR/No. 3018/2022 (Exhibit-H), is quashed and set aside and the Application dated 03.07.2023 filed by Respondent No.3 for condonation of delay stands rejected. (iii) No order as to costs. ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) GGP