Consolidation scheme errors resulting in land area reduction cannot override constitutionally protected title declared by civil courts.

The Petitioner purchased 82 R of agricultural land via a registered sale deed in 1982.

Following the implementation of a consolidation scheme under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, the Petitioner’s recorded area was reduced to 28 R.

The Petitioner secured a declaratory decree from a Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 300/1996, confirming his ownership of the full 82 R; this decree attained finality.

Based on this, the Deputy Director of Land Records ordered the restoration of the original area in 2016.

Respondents 4-6 challenged this before the Minister (Revenue), who set aside the restoration order on 06.06.2017, erroneously claiming a separate suit (RCS 47/2002) had set aside the Petitioner's sale deed.

The Petitioner challenged the Minister's order via this Writ Petition.

1. Whether the revenue authorities can justify the reduction of a landholder's area during consolidation without evidence of due notice under Section 15A(1) of the Act.

2. Whether a consolidation scheme can be corrected after a significant delay when the error arose from incorrect revenue entries and lack of notice.

3. Whether the Minister’s order was perverse for relying on a misinterpretation of a Civil Court decree.

Section 15A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, which mandates notice to landowners and consultation with village committees during scheme preparation.

Section 32 regarding the power to vary schemes and Section 31A for correcting clerical errors.

Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, establishing that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law.

Principle from Tulsiram v. State of Maharashtra, holding that the three-year limitation for varying a scheme does not apply if the reduction occurred without notice or through haphazard implementation.

The Court reasoned that the primary objective of the Consolidation Act is to unite holdings for better cultivation, not to deprive owners of their land.

It found that the revenue records failed to explain how the Petitioner's area was reduced from 82 R to 28 R.

Since the authorities failed to prove that notice under Section 15A(1) was served, the scheme’s enforcement against the Petitioner was deemed incomplete and prepared "behind his back".

The Court emphasized that technical delays cannot defeat the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A when the error is attributable to the State’s records.

The Court found the Minister’s decision "perverse" because the Minister falsely claimed the Petitioner’s sale deed was set aside, whereas the Civil Court had actually confirmed the Petitioner’s title.

The Court held that an agriculturist cannot be deprived of land due to "inadvertence and haphazard implementation" of a scheme by authorities and directed the restoration of the Petitioner’s land record to reflect the 82 R area as declared by the Civil Court.