Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Kisan Bhimrao Patil and others, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner refusing to vary a consolidation scheme under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948. The dispute pertained to land Survey No. 1 in village Savargaon, Taluka Shirur Anantpal, District Latur. A consolidation scheme under Section 21 of the Act was finalized on 31.03.1990, allotting different Gat numbers to various holders, including the petitioners' father Bhimrao Madhavrao Patil (Gat No. 1) and the predecessor of respondent No. 5, Pandharinath Tulshiram Shelke (Gat No. 2). The petitioners sought variation of the scheme after 29 years, claiming that the allotment was erroneous. The Settlement Commissioner rejected the application on the ground of delay and lack of jurisdiction. The High Court upheld this decision, holding that the scheme had attained finality and the petitioners had not shown any exceptional circumstances to justify the inordinate delay. The court noted that the scheme was implemented long ago and rights of parties had crystallized. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Land Consolidation - Variation of Scheme - Section 32 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 - Laches and Delay - The petitioners sought variation of a consolidation scheme finalized on 31.03.1990 after a delay of 29 years. The court held that the Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a belated application, as the scheme had attained finality and no exceptional circumstances were shown to justify the delay. (Paras 2-6)
B) Land Consolidation - Finality of Scheme - Section 21 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 - Once a scheme under Section 21 is finalized, it cannot be reopened after a long period unless there is a clear provision or exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized that the scheme had been implemented and rights had crystallized, and the petitioners' challenge was barred by laches. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Settlement Commissioner should have ordered variation of the scheme under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Settlement Commissioner. The rule was discharged.
Law Points
- Section 32 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act
- 1948
- laches
- delay
- jurisdiction of Settlement Commissioner
- variation of consolidation scheme
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (10) 1
24 WRIT PETITION NO. 3887 OF 2019
Mr. V.P. Golewar for Petitioners, Mr. S.N. Morampalle for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. S.S. Panale for Respondent No. 5
Kisan Bhimrao Patil, Venkatrao S/o. Bhimrao Patil, Madhukar S/o. Bhimrao Patil
The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad, The District Superintendent, Land Records, Latur, The Deputy Superintendent, Land Records, Latur, Shirur Anantpal, Sidram S/o. Lachreddy Algule
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner refusing to vary a consolidation scheme under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order of the Settlement Commissioner and to direct variation of the consolidation scheme.
Filing Reason
The petitioners claimed that the consolidation scheme finalized on 31.03.1990 erroneously allotted Gat numbers and sought variation after 29 years.
Previous Decisions
The Settlement Commissioner rejected the application for variation on the ground of delay and lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain an application for variation of a consolidation scheme under Section 32 of the Act after a delay of 29 years.
Whether the petitioners were barred by laches from challenging the scheme finalized in 1990.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the scheme was erroneous and should be varied under Section 32.
The respondents contended that the scheme had attained finality and the application was barred by laches.
Ratio Decidendi
A consolidation scheme under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948, once finalized, cannot be varied after a long period of 29 years under Section 32, as the scheme attains finality and rights of parties crystallize. The Settlement Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to entertain such belated applications in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Judgment Excerpts
The question that is to be answered in this Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether in the facts and circumstances, the Settlement Commissioner should have ordered variation of the scheme under the provisions of Section 32 the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948.
The scheme under Section 21 of the Act was finalized on 31.03.1990.
Procedural History
The consolidation scheme was finalized on 31.03.1990. The petitioners filed an application for variation under Section 32 of the Act after 29 years. The Settlement Commissioner rejected the application. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948: Section 21, Section 32
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
