Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra Government Minister’s 2019 order remanding a land consolidation dispute for fresh inquiry to the Superintendent of Land Records. It dismissed the petition challenging the Minister’s jurisdiction and delay condonation, holding that the Superintendent’s 2011 order was “arbitrary, misconceived and patently illegal.” The Court ruled that “there is fundamental flaw in the order dated 09.02.2011,” and directed the Superintendent to re-conduct the inquiry to identify the correct constituents and area of the lands in Gut Nos. 17 and 19 before and after consolidation.
Facts
The dispute involved ownership of 8 acres of land that the petitioner alleged was wrongly added to Gut No. 19, owned by the respondent, following the implementation of a land consolidation scheme in Osmanabad district. The petitioner claimed ownership over 10 acres 7 gunthas in Survey No. 13/A, which became Gut No. 17 after consolidation but was reduced to 76R (less than 2 acres). He alleged that 8 acres of his land were erroneously included in Gut No. 19, formed from Survey Nos. 8/2, 8/3 and 9/3 and owned by the respondent.
The petitioner filed a civil suit in 1995, which was decreed in his favour in 2001. On appeal, the matter was remanded for reference under Section 36B of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The Superintendent of Land Records passed an order in 2011, effectively granting the petitioner’s claim without detailed findings. That order formed the basis of a second decree in 2015. The respondent’s appeal was dismissed in 2019.
Subsequently, the respondent filed an appeal before the Minister under Section 35 of the Act, challenging the 2011 order and seeking its quashing. The Minister allowed the appeal, set aside the Superintendent’s order, and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry. This Ministerial decision was then challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
Issues
- Whether the Minister had jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act to entertain the appeal filed nearly 8 years after the Superintendent’s 2011 order.
- Whether condonation of delay in filing the appeal was legal and proper.
- Whether the Superintendent’s 2011 order was valid and passed in accordance with the civil court’s directions.
- Whether the Minister rightly set aside the Superintendent’s order and remanded the matter.
- Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Minister lacked jurisdiction to entertain the delayed appeal under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act and had wrongly relied on Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which was inapplicable. It was further contended that the 2011 order was passed after due process, including public notice and publication. The petitioner claimed that the respondent had already failed in multiple civil proceedings and had suppressed this fact while seeking condonation. The Superintendent’s order, according to the petitioner, was never challenged in time and had attained finality, with mutation entries already effected. It was alleged that the Minister’s order simultaneously condoning the delay and deciding the appeal was perverse, arbitrary, and amounted to usurpation of judicial powers.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent maintained that the Superintendent’s 2011 order was passed without due verification of consolidation records and without giving notice to all legal heirs of deceased parties. The inquiry failed to answer the specific question referred by the civil court and was based on an erroneous assumption that typographical or arithmetical errors existed. The respondent submitted that the Superintendent wrongfully exercised powers under Section 31A of the Act and issued a corrigendum without jurisdiction. He further contended that the land records clearly showed Gut No. 17 belonged to the petitioner but comprised only 76R, while Gut No. 19, composed of different survey numbers, belonged to him. The respondent argued that the Minister, exercising supervisory powers under Section 35, acted within jurisdiction to set aside a fraudulent or erroneous order and remand the matter.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of Section 35 of the Consolidation Act, which permits the State Government to examine the legality or propriety of orders passed under the Act, without prescribing a limitation period. The Court held that “no period of limitation is prescribed for invoking the powers,” and emphasized that the exercise of such powers was valid as long as the parties were heard and reasons were recorded.
On the condonation of delay, the Court observed that the petitioner did not file a reply to the delay application and impliedly consented to simultaneous adjudication of delay and merits. It found that “no prejudice is caused to him” and the Minister’s exercise of discretion, while not elaborately reasoned, was valid and justified in the facts of the case.
Regarding the Superintendent’s 2011 order, the Court found it to be legally flawed. Instead of answering the reference made by the civil court under Section 36B regarding the pre- and post-consolidation composition of Gut No. 17, the Superintendent issued a cryptic corrigendum under Section 31A, purportedly correcting an arithmetical error. The Court ruled this action to be outside his mandate, finding “the enquiry undertaken by the Superintendent is thoroughly uncalled for and misconceived.”
Precedent Analysis
The petitioner relied on:
- Avantikabai Shankar Shinde v. Pratap Gunderao Jadhav (2024) — concerning delayed appeals.
- Hanmant Jaisingh Ahirekar v. Baburao Raghunath Ahirekar (2019) — simultaneous adjudication of delay and merits held improper.
- Shankar Ramrao Rangekar v. Narayan Sakharam Sawant (2013) — procedural impropriety.
- NBCC v. Regional Labour Commissioner (2006) — procedural error in administrative decisions.
The Court distinguished all these on facts, noting that the petitioner had not objected to the delay adjudication procedure or proved procedural prejudice.
The respondent cited:
- Collector Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987) — liberal approach to delay condonation.
- S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) — fraud vitiates judicial orders.
- Ashok Balaji Ratan v. Nagpur Improvement Trust (2004) — principles on delay.
- Multiple Bombay High Court rulings — on correction of consolidation records, scope of jurisdiction, and procedural irregularities.
The Court held most of these cases distinguishable but affirmed the relevance of those highlighting the illegality of bypassing prescribed procedures and ignoring civil court mandates.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the Minister’s jurisdiction under Section 35 was properly invoked. It observed that the Superintendent “lost sight of the directions of the Appellate Court” and failed to verify essential records. The 2011 order did not address the core issue referred by the civil court and was passed without notice to necessary parties. The High Court remarked:
“Whole exercise of Superintendent and resultantly order dated 09.02.2011 is misconceived, arbitrary and patently illegal.”
The Court emphasized that when the matter was pending before the civil court, issuing a corrigendum under Section 31A without authority was unjustified. It further stated:
“The inquiry conducted by the Superintendent is superfluous and extraneous… This Court would be failing in its duty if the order dated 09.02.2011 is not quashed and set aside.”
Conclusion
The Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld the Minister’s order setting aside the 2011 corrigendum, and directed the Superintendent of Land Records to conduct a fresh inquiry within three months. The new inquiry must determine “what are the constituent survey numbers of Gut Nos. 17 and 19 and what is their total area before and after consolidation.” Interim relief was extended for three weeks.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that statutory authorities must strictly comply with judicial directions when acting on references from civil courts. It affirms the principle that administrative corrections under the consolidation scheme must follow due process and cannot be invoked as a substitute for fact-finding. The ruling is also a clear signal that higher supervisory powers under consolidation laws are available to rectify jurisdictional errors even after a significant delay.
FAQs
Q1. Can the Minister of State intervene in consolidation disputes after years have passed?
Yes. Under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Consolidation Act, the Minister can exercise supervisory powers without any limitation period, provided parties are heard and reasons are recorded.
Q2. What was wrong with the Superintendent’s 2011 order?
The Superintendent failed to answer the specific reference from the civil court and instead issued a corrigendum under the wrong provision (Section 31A), without proper inquiry or reasoning.
Q3. What must the Superintendent now determine in the remanded inquiry?
The Superintendent must identify the original survey numbers forming Gut Nos. 17 and 19 and their areas before and after consolidation to resolve the ownership and boundary dispute.
