Dismissed¶26

Savala Mahadu Bombe (Decd) Thr Lhrs and Ors. v. Mukta Mahadu Bombe (Decd) Thr Lhrs and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2025WP/471/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No.471 of 2025, Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J., March 18, 2025). Delay condonation under Section 31(A) Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947; 35-year delay; consolidation scheme of 1979; Consolidation Appeal No.49 of 2016; constructive notice via 7/12 extract and Section 3 Transfer of Property Act, 1882; three-year outer limit for exercising S.31(A); revisional authority respondent No.4; writ dismissed; consequential rectification orders cancelled; no cases specifically cited.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and all consequential orders passed in furtherance of the delay condonation, including the rectification, stand cancelled. ¶26

Savala Mahadu Bombe (Decd) Thr Lhrs and Ors. vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and all consequential orders passed in furtherance of the delay condonation, including the rectification, stand cancelled.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.4 (the Revisional Authority) rightly refused to condone the inordinate delay of 35 years in invoking Section 31(A) of the said Act and correctly set aside the condonation and consequential rectification, notwithstanding the petitioner's plea of lack of knowledge of the implementation of the 1979 consolidation scheme. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Changes effected by a scheme under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 are reflected in revenue records including the 7/12 extract, and such an entry operates as constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; the petitioner therefore cannot claim ignorance of the entries for over three decades, making his plea of lack of knowledge wholly untenable.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The sole ground urged to justify the 35-year delay — alleged lack of knowledge of implementation of the consolidation scheme — is wholly untenable, and the Revisional Authority rightly rejected that explanation.

¶20

Key takeaways

Applying the consistent view of Division Benches and co-ordinate Benches of this Court that the power under Section 31(A) must be exercised within a reasonable time ordinarily not exceeding three years from finalization of the scheme, the delay in the instant case extends far beyond the permissible limit and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated to warrant departure; consequently this Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning of respondent No.4.ratio¶21
Respondent No.4 exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law by refusing to condone the delay of 35 years in invoking Section 31(A) of the said Act; the challenge to the impugned order is devoid of merit and no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 — S.31(A) — rectification of clerical error in consolidation scheme of 1979 — condonation of delay of 35 years refused by Revisional Authority (respondent No.4) by order dated 14/10/2024 — writ petition under Article 226 challenging the revisional order. HELD: entries made under the Act are reflected in revenue records including the 7/12 extract, and such entries operate as constructive notice under S.3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; the petitioner's plea of lack of knowledge for over three decades was wholly untenable; judicial pronouncements of Division and co-ordinate Benches of this Court consistently require exercise of power under S.31(A) within a reasonable time ordinarily not exceeding three years from finalization of the scheme; no exceptional circumstances shown; no infirmity in the impugned order; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; all consequential orders including rectification stand cancelled.

¶1

19 WP 471-25.doc

¶2

Ashish

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.471 OF 2025

¶5

Savala Mahadu Bombe … Petitioner V/s. Mukta Mahadu Bombe deceased, through L. Hrs. & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr.Pramod Pawar for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr.Uday Nighot, a/w Niraj Kate, Sulajja Patil for Respondent Nos.1A to 1B.

¶8

Mr.S.d. Rayrikar, AGP for State- Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶9

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : MARCH 18, 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The present writ petition assails the legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 14/10/2024, passed by respondent No.4, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent Nos.1A and 1B has been allowed, resulting in the setting aside of the order condoning delay and the consequential rectification of the record under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

¶12

Upon a meticulous perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner had preferred an application under Section 31(A) of the said Act, seeking rectification of an alleged clerical error in the

¶13

¶14

19 WP 471-25.doc

¶15

scheme finalized and implemented in the year 1979. The petitioner contended that the said error had caused discrepancies in the land records. The competent authority, exercising jurisdiction under the said Act, directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of an appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Consolidation Appeal No.49 of 2016 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by its order dated 14/08/2017, allowed the said appeal, condoned the delay, and directed rectification of the consolidation scheme records. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent preferred a revision before respondent No.4, which was dismissed by an order dated 13/12/2018.

¶16

Thereafter, respondent Nos.1A and 1B invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ petition, wherein this Court, by its reasoned judgment, allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was directed to reconsider the application for condonation of delay, treating the application dated 07/01/2014 as an application under Section 31(A) of the said Act. In compliance with the directions of this Court, the Appellate Authority, vide its judgment and order dated 25/01/2014, condoned the delay. The said order was again challenged by respondent Nos.1A and 1B before respondent No.4 in a revision petition. Respondent No.4, by the impugned order, allowed the revision and set aside the condonation of delay, inter alia, on the ground that the delay of 35 years was inordinate and could not be condoned in the absence of a legally justifiable explanation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present writ

19 WP 471-25.doc

petition.

Upon a careful scrutiny of the application for condonation of delay, it is apparent that the sole ground urged by the petitioner to justify the inordinate delay of 35 years was his alleged lack of knowledge regarding the implementation of the consolidation scheme. However, such an explanation, in the considered opinion of this Court, is wholly untenable. The scheme formulated and implemented under the provisions of the said Act results in changes being duly reflected in the revenue records, including the 7/12 extract, which is a vital document evidencing possession. Such an entry in revenue records operates as constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim ignorance of such entries for an extended period of over three decades. The Revisional Authority has rightly rejected the explanation tendered by the petitioner and has correctly held that condoning an extraordinary delay of 35 years, on the sole ground of the petitioner's alleged ignorance, would not be in consonance with the settled principles of law.

¶21

Furthermore, judicial pronouncements of both Division Benches and co-ordinate Benches of this Court have consistently held that the power under Section 31(A) of the said Act must be exercised within a reasonable time frame, which should ordinarily not exceed three years from the date of the finalization of the scheme. In the instant case, the delay extends far beyond the permissible limit, and no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to warrant a departure from the settled legal position. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the reasoning

¶22

¶23

19 WP 471-25.doc

¶24

adopted by respondent No.4 in the impugned order.

¶25

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that respondent No.4 has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law by refusing to condone the delay of 35 years in invoking Section 31(A) of the said Act. The challenge to the impugned order is devoid of merit, and no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

¶26

Consequently, all consequential orders passed in furtherance of the delay condonation, including the rectification directed by the authorities under the said Act, stand cancelled. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶27

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶28

Savala Mahadu Bombe (Decd) Thr Lhrs and Ors. v. Mukta Mahadu Bombe (Decd) Thr Lhrs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savala Mahadu Bombe (Decd) Thr Lhrs and Ors. v. Mukta Mahadu Bombe (Decd) Thr Lhrs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nitin Laxmidas Dama vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary Ministry of Dairy Development

Quality Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary

Amit Vyas vs Union of India through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

Nitin Laxmidas Dama vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary Ministry of Dairy Development

Bapusaheb Ganpatrao Gawali vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societiesnashik Division and Ors.

M/S Safety Carriers (India )Throu. Its Partner Jatinder Singh J Singh and Ors. vs Liquidator Rupee Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.