Bombay HC Restores Landowner’s Correction Of A 52-Are Consolidation Entry, Finding No Proof Of Alleged Compromise Claim

By a registered sale deed dated 13 October 1962, the petitioner and another party purchased a larger parcel of land.

The petitioner’s share was recorded as 5 acres and 12 gunthas, but, following implementation of a consolidation scheme in 1971, his Gat No. 1280 was shown as only 52 ares.

On the petitioner’s application, the competent authority issued a correction order under Section 31A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“the Act”), dated 6 September 1994.

The respondents challenged that order, alleging an agreement or *kabulayat* to account for differences in land quality. The Secretary/Officer on Special Duty allowed the revision, set aside the correction, and directed a fresh corrigendum, while permitting the petitioner to seek an enquiry under Section 32(1).

The petitioner challenged that decision under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 31A of the Act provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors, or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions; its scope is distinct from that of Section 32(1), which concerns other errors in or variations to a consolidation scheme.

Relying on *Mallappa Guruppa Chaugule v. Padmanna Omanna Sajane*, 1980 Mh.L.J. 377, the Court noted that allotment of inferior land is not, by itself, a ground for variation of a scheme under Section 32(1).

The Court considered the impugned revisional order under Section 35 of the Act and exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The respondents’ case rested on alleged differences in land quality and an alleged *kabulayat*, but the Court found no concrete evidence establishing either claim.

The original sale deed had not been challenged, and the record did not indicate an exchange of land.

The Court held that these disputed matters were not a proper basis for setting aside a correction made under Section 31A, particularly given the distinct scope of Section 32(1).

In the absence of supporting material for the respondents’ central allegations, the Secretary/OSD’s decision to interfere with the corrigendum was unjustified.

The Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs; the effect of the judgment was stayed for four weeks at the respondents’ request.