Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a letter dated 2nd February 1990 and a notice dated 3rd March 1990 issued by the Commissioner for Consolidation and the Assistant Consolidation Officer respectively under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The dispute concerned land Survey No.349, Hissa No.7 admeasuring 18 gunthas in Village Lengare, Taluka Khanapur, District Sangli, which formed part of Gat No.1316. A consolidation scheme under the Act was made applicable to the village in 1970, and notices under Section 15A were issued on 8th June 1970. The Consolidation Officer recorded statements of the concerned Khatedars on 10th June 1970, and the scheme was finalized. The petitioners claimed that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice. The court noted that the petitioners had not challenged the consolidation scheme or any earlier orders for nearly 20 years. The impugned letter and notice were merely consequential to the earlier final orders. The court held that the petition suffered from gross delay and laches and dismissed it. The court also noted that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Act, which they did not avail. The judgment was delivered by Justice Ranjit More on 4th October 2011.
Headnote
A) Land Consolidation - Finality of Orders - Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, Sections 15A, 22, 31 - Challenge to consolidation orders after 20 years - Petitioners did not challenge the consolidation scheme or earlier orders within reasonable time - Impugned letter and notice were merely consequential to earlier final orders - Held that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned letter and notice issued under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 are liable to be quashed on the ground that they were issued without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned letter dated 2nd February 1990 and notice dated 3rd March 1990 are not quashed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Consolidation scheme under Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act
- 1947
- finality of consolidation orders
- limitation for challenging consolidation orders
- scope of Article 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (10) 21
Writ Petition No. 1783 of 1990
Shri G. R. Rege with Mr. S. M. Railkar for petitioners; Shri A. I. Patel, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3; Shri S. B. Deshmukh for respondent nos. 4A to 4D
Ganpati Dadu Mali (since deceased through heirs) and Damodar Dadu Mali
State of Maharashtra, Assistant Consolidation Officer No.I, Commissioner for Consolidation and Director of Land Records, Maharashtra State, Dagdu Rama Mali (since deceased through heirs)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of letter dated 2nd February 1990 and notice dated 3rd March 1990 issued by respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 respectively.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
Consolidation scheme was made applicable in 1970; notices under Section 15A were issued on 8th June 1970; statements of Khatedars were recorded on 10th June 1970; the scheme was finalized. No earlier challenge was made.
Issues
Whether the impugned letter and notice are liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice.
Whether the petition is maintainable given the delay of nearly 20 years in challenging the consolidation scheme.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice.
Respondents contended that the petition suffered from gross delay and laches as the consolidation scheme was finalized in 1970 and the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
A consolidation scheme under the Act, once finalized and not challenged within a reasonable time, cannot be collaterally attacked after 20 years through a writ petition under Article 227. The impugned orders being merely consequential to the earlier final orders are not liable to be quashed. Delay and laches bar the petition.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders contained in Letter dated 2nd February, 1990 as well as Notice dated 3rd March, 1990 issued by respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 respectively under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
The Consolidation Officer recorded statements as agreed by concerned Khatedars on 10th June, 1970.
The impugned letter and notice are merely consequential to the earlier orders which have become final.
The petition suffers from gross delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Procedural History
The consolidation scheme was made applicable to Village Lengare in 1970. Notices under Section 15A were issued on 8th June 1970. Statements were recorded on 10th June 1970. The scheme was finalized. In 1990, the impugned letter and notice were issued. The petitioners filed the present writ petition in 1990 challenging those orders. The petition was heard and dismissed on 4th October 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947: 15A, 22, 31
- Constitution of India: 227
