Case Note & Summary
The petitioner challenged orders dated 09 July 2015 and 15 July 2014 related to a land consolidation scheme implemented in 1974 -- The petitioner claimed his father's land area was reduced by 39 R during consolidation and sought rectification after 38 years -- The State Minister (Revenue) dismissed the appeal citing lack of jurisdiction and delay -- The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the application was barred by limitation and laches -- The Court found no evidence of fraud in obtaining signatures on possession receipts -- The consolidation scheme had attained finality after implementation and the petitioner's delayed approach was unsustainable
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging orders related to implementation of a land consolidation scheme -- The petitioner sought rectification of land area under Gut No. 1206 after 38 years delay -- The Court held that the petitioner's application was barred by limitation and laches -- The State Minister (Revenue) correctly dismissed the appeal as the authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain objections after such prolonged delay -- The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of fraud in obtaining signatures on possession receipts -- The consolidation scheme was implemented in 1974 and the petitioner approached authorities only in 2012 -- The Court emphasized that land consolidation schemes attain finality after implementation and cannot be reopened after decades without compelling reasons
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the writ petition challenging orders related to land consolidation scheme implementation after 38 years delay is maintainable
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the State Minister (Revenue) and other authorities -- The Court held the petition was barred by limitation and laches -- No relief was granted to the petitioner
