Krushna Namdeo Karwar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:18442

¶2

Dilwale 1 70-WP-682-17.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

70 WRIT PETITION NO. 682 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3196 OF 2026

¶5

Krushna Namdeo Karwar And Others VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioners/ Applicants : Mr. Suryawanshi Govind G. Suryawanshi

¶8

Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : Mr. Naiknavare Ramesh V. Advocate for Respondent No.7 : Mr. Manoj G. Biradar AGP for Respondent-State : Mrs. D. S. Jape

¶9

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 08.04.2026

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶12

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2015

¶13

passed by respondent No.1-Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai, whereby the order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the Respondent

¶14

No.2 – Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, and the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Osmanabad came to be confirmed.

¶15

Mr. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had filed an appeal before respondent No.3 – Superintendent of Land Records, Osmanabad, seeking correction of the

¶16

Dilwale 2 70-WP-682-17.odt

¶17

7/12 extracts. The said appeal was allowed by issuing directions to correct the 7/12 extracts as per possession. The petitioners thereafter filed an application, which came to be rejected by respondent No.2, and the same was confirmed by respondent No.1.

¶18

It is further submitted that, in the year 1957-58, while preparing pot hissa of land Survey No. 535, the area was reduced. The area of respondent no.4 was reduced by 2 acres 28 gunthas, the area of respondent no.5 was reduced by 3 acre 14 gunthas. According to the petitioners, they are in possession of 3 acres 15 gunthas and 3 acres 14 gunthas; Therefore, an application was filed seeking remeasurement of land Survey No. 535 and correction of the 7/12 extract as per actual possession. It is further submitted that the record was prepared in the year 1960 and since then the petitioners are in possession of the land. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 had not raised any objection to the pot hissa measurement carried out in 1957-58. It is, therefore, contended that, in view of the inordinate delay, the orders passed by the Superintendent of Land Records and confirmed by the Deputy Director and respondent No.1 are liable to be set aside.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, Mr. Naiknavare, learned counsel for respondent No.7, Mr. Biradar, and the learned AGP support the impugned orders.

¶20

I have considered the 7/12 extracts, pot hissa record, the application filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, and the orders passed by the

¶21

Dilwale 3 70-WP-682-17.odt

¶22

revenue authorities. It is not a case where the area was reduced under any consolidation scheme. The case of the respondents before District Superintendent of Land Records was that while recording the pot hissa, the area of respondent Nos.4 & 5 was reduced, though the respondents

¶23

were in possession of the said land. Thus, the error appears to have occurred on the part of the authorities while recording the pot hissa.

¶24

Upon the application filed, the Superintendent of Land Records directed measurement of the land, and on that basis, correction of the record was ordered. In my view, if an incorrect entry is made in the record without the knowledge of the concerned party, and particularly when the area is not in consonance with actual possession and prior record, the authorities are justified in correcting such error

¶25

The pot hissa is required to reflect the actual possession. If the area is shown as reduced, the authority must justify the basis for such reduction. In the present case, the correction directed by the Superintendent of Land Records, and confirmed by the Deputy Director and respondent No.1, appears to be proper and legal

¶26

Hence, no interference is warranted.

¶27

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶28

Pending civil application stands disposed of.

¶29

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE

Krushna Namdeo Karwar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krushna Namdeo Karwar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Homeotpathic Medical College and Hospital, Akola Thr. Principal, Dr. Sanjaykumar Tiwari vs the Asstt. Provident Funds Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Org., Akola

Kisan Anandrao Pachpute vs the Divisional Manager Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Nanded

Habibur Rehman Abdul Majid vs Noor Mohammad M Israil and Others

Shantabai Kisan Bhusari Thr Gpa Holder Sanjay Kisan Bhusari vs Punja Mukinda Rakhinkar and Others

Shantabai Sudam Hiwrale Died through Lr Jagdish Sudam Hiwrale vs the Additional Collector Jalna and Others

Jaiwant Hiraji Gunjale Died through Lrs Hemant U Pawar vs Kamal Digambar Mandlik