Erroneous Revenue Entries Cannot Defeat Property Rights Under Article 300-A Of Constitution: Bombay High Court
The Bench noted that no specific period of limitation bars an owner from seeking corrections to such entries.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has held that the implementation of a consolidation scheme cannot be a ground to deprive an owner of their legitimate land area, and their constitutional right to property under Article 300-A Constitution of India, especially when the reduction occurs due to incorrect revenue entries maintained by the state.
The Court held that revenue authorities must explain reductions caused by incorrect records, and landowners cannot be blamed for official entry errors. Furthermore, the Court clarified that no specific period of limitation either under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 or under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 bars an owner from seeking corrections to such entries, as the failure of authorities to issue statutory notices often prevents landowners from discovering errors in real-time.
Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre observed, “Merely because the consolidation scheme was implemented earlier, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his property, particularly when the reduction in area occurred due to incorrect revenue entries. The right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India cannot be defeated on the basis of erroneous entries…”.
Advocate Pankaj A. Bharat appeared for the petitioner and D. R. Korde, AGP appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, purchased 82 R of agricultural land in Village Ambulga, Latur, via a registered sale deed on February 16, 1982. Despite his clear title and possession, the subsequent implementation of a consolidation scheme resulted in his land area being erroneously recorded as only 28 R in the revenue records.
The petitioner’s title was explicitly declared by a Civil Court in 1996, a decree that attained finality. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Land Records conducted an inquiry, confirmed the error, and directed restoration of the original 82 R in 2016.
However, this restoration was set aside by the learned Minister in 2017 following a revision by the respondents, who argued that the consolidation scheme could not be altered after many years.
“The purpose of the consolidation is to consolidate the differentiated smaller holding of the land holder into a consolidated holding for better cultivation thereof. The object of the Act is not to reduce or increase the holding of the land owner as it would infringe his right to property which is legal-constitutional rights. The purpose is to create and maintain a consolidated record of holding by assigning appropriate unified survey number”, it noted.
It observed that the reduction in the petitioner’s area was a result of haphazard implementation and failure to follow the procedure under Section 15A(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, which requires notice to landowners. The Bench held that the ratio of the law is that a legal-constitutional right cannot be taken away on technical grounds of delay when the fault lies with the authorities.
“There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the agriculturists are aggrieved by the record created after enforcement of scheme. The consent as required under Section 15A of the Act was never obtained and no compensation was paid to the agriculturists whose holding has been reduced. It is not even the case that the agriculturists whose holding was increased were paid compensation. The procedure prescribed for recovery of compensation was not initiated. Section 16 provides for compensation. The agriculturist who is allotted holding of less market value than that of his original holding has to be paid compensation. Whereas, the land owner who is allotted holding of greater market value than that of his original holding has to pay compensation”, the Bench further noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Minister's order dated June 06, 2017, and directed the restoration of the revenue records to reflect the petitioner's ownership of 82 R, making the rule absolute.
Cause Title: Rama s/o Gunda Malkapure v. The State of Maharashtra & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:20436)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Pankaj A. Bharat, Advocate.
Respondents: D. R. Korde, AGP, Suhas P. Urgunde, Advocate.