The Bombay High Court has clarified that long-standing consolidation schemes under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, may be corrected for clerical errors even after decades, provided the scheme was never effectively enforced through possession transfer or compensation payment. This ruling redefines the limits of limitation and authority in land record corrections, offering critical guidance to revenue officers and litigants in agrarian disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on Survey No.76/1 and 76/2 in Bhadi, Latur, where the petitioner and respondent No.6, sons of brothers, held adjacent agricultural lands. A consolidation scheme framed between 1961 and 1972 recorded the petitioner’s holding as 4 H 78 R and respondent No.6’s as 3 H 22 R. However, respondent No.6 later claimed his recorded area was erroneously reduced, and he had never received compensation or been evicted from the land allegedly transferred to the petitioner.
Procedural History
- 1961 - 1972: Consolidation scheme prepared and confirmed, but possession and compensation procedures under Section 21 were not completed.
- 1972: Mutation Entry No.157 altered land records, increasing petitioner’s holding and reducing respondent No.6’s, without recorded justification.
- 2013: Respondent No.6 filed application seeking correction of 7/12 extract, alleging clerical error.
- 2015: Deputy Director of Land Records approved draft scheme correcting the area, finding petitioner in excess possession.
- 2017: State Minister dismissed petitioner’s appeal, upholding the correction.
- 2017: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.12501 of 2017.
- 2024: Civil Application No.8479 of 2024 filed seeking continuation of interim relief.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the 2015 and 2017 orders, arguing that the consolidation scheme could not be altered after three years under Section 22, and that only the Settlement Commissioner had authority under Section 32. He also contended that the Minister lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether authorities may correct clerical errors in a consolidation scheme under Section 31A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, after a delay exceeding three years, when possession was never transferred and compensation never paid.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade v. Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare and Dattu Appa Patil v. State of Maharashtra to argue that consolidation schemes become final after three years from the date they come into force under Section 22. He contended that the State Minister, not the Deputy Director, was the only competent authority under Section 32, and that delegation of power violated constitutional principles. He further argued that the 2013 application was barred by limitation, as it was filed 36 years after the scheme’s confirmation.
For the Respondent
Respondent No.6 argued that the scheme was never enforced: no compensation was paid, no eviction occurred, and no possession was transferred to the petitioner. She relied on Tulsiram v. State of Maharashtra and Krishanabai Gore v. State of Maharashtra to assert that Section 31A permits correction of clerical errors when the scheme remains unenforced. She emphasized that the petitioner’s possession was merely a paper entry, not a legal right under the Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the distinction between Section 32 (for variation of scheme) and Section 31A (for correction of clerical or mechanical errors). It held that Section 32 applies only when the scheme’s structure is altered - such as reorganizing gat numbers or reallocating land parcels. In contrast, Section 31A permits rectification of errors in recording area, ownership, or survey numbers, even after long delays, if the scheme was never implemented.
"The authority has rightly come to the conclusion that powers under Section 31A of the Act needs to be exercised to correct the clerical errors as there is no variation in the scheme but mere recording of correct ownership of the respective owners, in the existing gat numbers."
The Court found that the petitioner’s holding of 4 H 78 R was never lawfully acquired because no compensation was deposited, no eviction order issued, and no possession transferred under Section 21. The 1972 Mutation Entry No.157 was a mere clerical misrecording, not a valid transfer. The Court distinguished Tulsiram and Krishanabai as directly on point: where possession and compensation procedures under Section 21 are incomplete, the scheme remains unenforced, and Section 31A remains available.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that only the State Minister could decide under Section 32, noting that the correction was made under Section 31A, which permits subordinate officers to rectify errors. The Minister’s confirmation was merely administrative, not a delegation of judicial power.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that Section 31A permits correction of clerical errors in land records even after decades, provided the consolidation scheme was never enforced through possession transfer or compensation payment. The authorities acted lawfully in rectifying the erroneous record.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Clerical Errors Can Be Corrected Indefinitely
- Practitioners must distinguish between substantive scheme variation (barred after 3 years) and clerical correction (permissible anytime).
- If compensation was never paid or possession never transferred, the scheme is deemed unenforced, and Section 31A remains applicable.
- Revenue officers may now confidently rectify 7/12 extracts where records contradict physical possession.
Possession and Compensation Are the True Tests of Enforcement
- A mere mutation entry or record update does not constitute enforcement under Section 22.
- Courts will examine whether the procedural requirements of Section 21 - compensation deposit, eviction, and physical handover - were completed.
- Petitioners claiming limitation bars must prove actual possession and payment, not just record entries.
Subordinate Officers May Act Under Section 31A
- Only Section 32 requires the Settlement Commissioner or Minister; Section 31A permits district-level officers to correct errors.
- Challenges based on delegation of power are misplaced when the correction is under Section 31A.
- Legal notices and appeals must now specifically identify whether the challenge is to a scheme variation or a clerical correction.
