Nana Bhagwan Kolte vs Kisan Bhausaheb Kolte And Anr.

CNR No : HCBM010338111999


301-WP-3829-1999 C2.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by
HUSENBASHA
RAHAMAN
NADAF
Date:
2026.10.23
20:28:45 +0530
HUSENBASHA
RAHAMAN
NADAF
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3829 OF 1999
Nana Bhagwan Kolte )
resident of at post Pisarve )
Taluka Purandhar, District Pune. ) … Petitioner
Versus
1. Kisan Bhausaheb Kolte )
(since deceased) by heirs and )
Legal representatives )
1a) Kalawati Kisan Kolte )
1b) Gorakh Kisan Kolte )
Both R/o At and Post Pisarve )
Tal. Purandhar, Dist. Pune. )
1c) Pushpa Vilas Kul )
R/o At and Post: Khamgaon )
Tal. Daund, Dist. Pune. )
1d) Vimal Prakash Shere )
R/o At and Post: Sakurde )
Tal. Purandhar, Dist. Pune. )
2. Vithal Bausheb Kolte )
(deceased by heirs and )
Representatives) )
2-A Sunita Tanaji Ingulkar, )
Age 33 years, Occ. Housewife, )
R/o Kamthodi, Tal Bhor, District Pune)
2-B Chandrakant @ Bapu Vithal Kolte)
Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture )
R/o Pisarve, Taluka Purandar )

Husen 1
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:45:36

301-WP-3829-1999 C2.doc
District Pune. )
2-C Anita Suresh Mhaske, )
Age 31 years, Occ. Housewife )
R/o Nhawali, Taluka Purandar )
Dist. Pune. )
2-D Vandana Balasaheb Kul )
Age 56 years, Occ. Agriculturist )
R/o Pisarve, Taluka Purandar )
District Thane. ) … Respondents

Ms. A. R. S. Baxi for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prafulla B. Shah a/w Ms. Gunjan P. Shah for Respondent Nos.1A,
1B, 1D & 2A to 2D.

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
nd
DATE : 22 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, challenging Judgment and Order dated 23.07.1998 passed by
Secretary and Officer on Special Duty (Appeals) Revenue and Forest
Department, Maharashtra State (‘Secretary/OSD’ for short) in
Revision Application No. Consolidation 3495/1180/Case No.
99/L.1/Case No. 679/97/AVR. By the said impugned order, the
revision application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is allowed
thereby cancelling the corrigendum/order dated 06.09.1994 issued
by Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune Division, Pune. Said
authority is directed to issue fresh corrigendum under Section 31A of
The Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1947 (‘the said Act’, for short). Said authority is also

Husen 2
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:45:36

301-WP-3829-1999 C2.doc
directed to show holding of Petitioner in Gat No. 1280 as 1 Hectare
52 Ares and the Petitioner was given liberty to apply under Section
32(1) of the said Act for separate enquiry.
2. Consequently, a notice was issued by the concerned Circle
Officer to Petitioner on 23.11.1998 about implementation of
impugned order.
3. The petition was admitted on 14.12.1999 and notice dated
23.11.1998 was stayed. In short, implementation of the impugned
order was stayed. During pendency of the petition, original
Respondents expired and their legal heirs are brought on record.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going
through the revision application, its reply and the impugned order,
following background emerges.
5. By registered Sale Deed dated 13.10.1962, the larger piece of
land bearing original Survey No.198 admeasuring 10 Acres 24
Gunthas at village Pisarve, Taluka Purandar, District Pune, was
purchased by the Petitioner and another party. The said land was sub
divided into Survey Nos. 198/1 and 198/2 and Survey No. 198/1 was
shown in Petitioner's name admeasuring 5 Acre, 12 Gunthas.
According to Petitioner, he is in possession and cultivation thereof till
today. Survey No. 198/2 was shown in the name of Venubai Nivrutti
Deokar which was subsequently entered in the name of Respondents
by Mutation Entry No. 3233.
6. In the year 1971, consolidation scheme was made applicable /

Husen 3
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:45:36

301-WP-3829-1999 C2.doc
implemented in the said village, in which the Petitioner's land was
given Gat No.1280 and the Respondent’s land was given Gat
No.1281. However, while implementing the scheme, the Petitioner’s
Gat No. 1280 was shown as only having 52 Ares. According to
Petitioner, it was far less than his actual holding which is 5 Acres 12
Gunthas. According to Petitioners, there was no exchange of lands or
any change in holding while implementing the consolidation scheme
map was prepared as per actual cultivation.
7. The Petitioner applied to Settlement Commission for correction
of the said area, under section 31A of the said Act for correction of
clerical / arithmetical mistake in the scheme. After taking oral
evidence and examining the record, the area of Petitioner’s Gat No.
1280 was corrected resulting in corrigendum/order dated
06.09.1994.
8. But then, the Respondents filed revision application before the
Revenue Minister/State contending inter alia that while
implementing the consolidation scheme, there was compromise/
Kabulayat between Petitioner’s father and Respondents and since
Petitioner’s land Gat No. 1280 was irrigated land (superior quality)
including a well, less area was given to said Gat and since
Respondent’s land Gat No. 1281 was non-irrigated (inferior quality)
and since they had filed a civil suit regarding their share and there
was injunction, they prayed for setting aside the correction.
9. The Petitioner filed reply contending that land in the name of
Venubai Nivrutti Deokar was shown in the name of Respondents

Husen 4
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:45:36

301-WP-3829-1999 C2.doc
under Mutation Entry No. 3233 and therefore both Petitioner and
Venubai Nivrutti Deokar had half share in the said larger piece of
land. That the Petitioner is in possession of half portion being 5 Acres
12 Gunthas since 1962. However, due to arithmetic mistake the area
of the Gat No.1280 was shown as 52 Ares which is rightly corrected.
Case of alleged compromise/Kabulayat by Petitioner’s father and
difference in quality of lands is denied. In fact it is contended that
Petitioner dug a well after consolidation scheme and formation of Gat
No. 1280.
10. The revision was allotted to Secretary/OSD, who has passed
the impugned order, setting aside correction and reverting the parties
to position of uneven holding.
11. Learned counsel for Petitioner Ms. Baxi submitted that the
Secretary/OSD has travelled beyond the scope of revisionary power
and despite coming to conclusion that there is no clarity in the
record, has erred in allowing the revision. She submitted that the sale
deed by which the Petitioner and predecessor of the Respondents
have purchased the larger piece of land is not challenged and while
implementing consolidation scheme, there was arithmetic error
which was corrected. She submitted that there is nothing on record
and no evidence in support of the alleged case of
compromise/Kabulayat by Petitioner's father or the lands having
different quality. She submitted that the Petitioner’s father was blind
and there is no question of he giving any consent or kabulayat.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents have

Husen 5
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:45:36

301-WP-3829-1999 C2.doc
supported the impugned order contending inter alia that under the
garb of arithmetic mistake, the concerned authority (Settlement
Commissioner) has undertaken major change / variation in the
consolidation scheme and therefore it is rightly set aside. He
submitted that impugned order permits the Petitioner to apply under
Section 32(1) of the said Act for appropriate enquiry and therefore, it
is a fair order and interference is not required.
13. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
14. It is important to note in the beginning that Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 filed a revision application challenging the corrigendum/order
dated 06.09.1994 contending that their land was not irrigated and
the land of the Petitioner was irrigated and there was a compromise/
kabulayat between the parties without any consideration which
resulted into an uneven distribution of area. This is a case about
lands having different quality and there being special arrangement
between parties. It is important to note that, there is no concrete
evidence about such difference in the quality of the land (irrigated or
non-irrigated) or any compromise/Kabulayat executed by father of
the Petitioner, as alleged. It is also important to note that such
consideration for change of consolidation scheme would be
apparently a matter for consideration under Section 32(1) of the said
Act.
15. The Petitioner in his reply has taken a clear stand that since
there was arithmetic mistake, it was corrected. The Petitioner has
also taken a clear stand that his father was blind and there was no

Husen 6
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:45:36

301-WP-3829-1999 C2.doc
reason to take his thumb-print for the purpose of alleged
compromise/ kabulayat. Specific stand is also taken that after the
implementation of consolidation scheme, the Petitioner has
constructed well in his Gat No.1280.
16. The learned Secretary/OSD while passing the impugned order,
has narrated rival contentions. He was conscious of the fact that
according to joint statement, the larger piece of land was purchased
from earlier owner Mr. Navalakha under Sale Deed dated
13.10.1962. He was also conscious of the fact that initially joint
statement was recorded in January 1985 and thereafter in March
1987, again inquiry was conducted and thereafter measurement was
carried out in January 1993, which measurement was not accepted
because the areas were not shown as per the actual cultivation. It was
all along the Petitioner's contention that less area is shown for his gat
number. In paragraph No.8 of the impugned order, the learned
Secretary/OSD has clearly held that the correspondence of the parties
is so scattered that it is not possible to conclude about what has
exactly happened. The learned Secretary/OSD seems to have
accepted the objection of the Respondents that the impugned
corrigendum is beyond the scope of Section 31A.
17. After going through the impugned order, apparently it appears
that the learned Secretary/OSD has interfered in the
corrigendum/order dated 06.09.1994 despite the fact that said
corrigendum had in fact restored the position between parties
showing original holding in favour of both the parties as per original
sale deed. It is not brought on record, not even a remote reference

Husen 7
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:45:36

301-WP-3829-1999 C2.doc
that the original sale deed was challenged by the Respondents. There
is nothing on record to indicate exchange of part of lands.
18. In that view of the matter, the impugned order has resulted
into perversity in as much as, the corrigendum/order of correction is
interfered without there being clear evidence in support of the
contention of the Respondents about alleged difference in the quality
of lands and/or there was compromise/ kabulayat executed by the
Petitioner’s father.
19. In the absence of any concrete material in favour of this basic
contention of the Respondents, on which the whole edifice of
Respondent’s case stands, the learned Secretary/OSD could not have
interfered. The impugned order not only interferes with the
corrigendum but drives the Petitioner to initiate another round of
correction / variation in the consolidation scheme, which is nothing
but perpetuating the dispute.
20. In Mallappa Guruppa Chaugule Vs. Padmanna Omanna Sajane
and Ors. 1980 Mh.L.J. 377 , the Division Bench of this Court has held
that ‘allotment of inferior land’ is not a ground for variation of the
scheme under Section 32(1) of the said Act and the scope of
correction under Section 32(1) and 31A of the said Act are different.
The Division Bench has held that under Section 32(1) of the said Act
the error referred is different from clerical or arithmetic error or error
arising from accidental slip or omission referred in Section 31A of the
said Act. In the present case, admittedly the correction/corrigendum
was issued under Section 31A of the said Act and therefore, in

Husen 8
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:45:36

301-WP-3829-1999 C2.doc
revision under Section 35 of the said Act, the learned Secretary/OSD
was not justified in getting into factual disputes about allotment of
inferior or superior land or other consideration such as, alleged
compromise/ kabulayat by the Petitioner’s father. Therefore, the said
judgment directly supports the case of the Petitioner.
21. For the reasons indicated above, the impugned order requires
interference.
22. Writ petition is therefore allowed by passing the following
order :
(A) Impugned order dated 23.07.1998 passed by Secretary/
Officer on Special Duty (Appeals), State of Maharashtra,
Revenue and Forest Division is quashed and set aside.
(B) The corrigendum/correction order dated 06.09.1994 is
restored.
23. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
24. At this stage, learned counsel for the Respondents seeks stay of
this order for a period of 4 weeks. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
opposed the request. In fairness, the effect of this order is stayed for a
period of 4 weeks only.
25. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Husen 9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:45:36
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)