1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.554 OF 2011. Harishchandra Babaji Shingne ..Vrs.. The State of Maharashtra and Others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, J J. DATED : 09 th. September, 2011. Heard Mr. B.N. Mohta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Shingane, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 12 and Mr. Nitin Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 7-A. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. It is apparent that order of Hon’ble Minister for Revenue and Forest (Cabinet), State of Maharashtra, dated 03.12.2008 partly accepted the grievance of petitioner and directed the Superintendent of the Land Records to take fresh decision. For that purpose corrigendum issued by him vide order dated 31.10.2000 was cancelled accordingly. The Superintendent of the Land Records has passed impugned order on 12.04.2010 holding that an exercise of consolidation afresh under Section 32(1) of the Bombay 2 Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was essential. That order is now questioned before this Court. 3. Mr. Mohta, learned Counsel, points out that consolidation was already over way back in 1983-1984 and therefore there is no question of reopening that consolidation. He further states that the order of Hon’ble Minister for Revenue, State of Maharashtra, remanding the matter back to the Superintendent of the Land Records is still in question. According to him against the said order dated 31.10.2000, review application has been filed before the Government which is still pending. Prayer for stay was made therein but that has not been decided so far. 4. Mr. Shingane, learned Counsel, states that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, because of order dated 03.12.2008 by which the matter was sent back for fresh consideration and after fresh consideration the impugned order only directs fresh consolidation proceedings. He has pointed out that by remand order the corrigendum issued on 31.10.2000 was already quashed and set aside. In this situation, according to him, grievance in present Writ Petition is misconceived. 5. Mr. Nitin Sambre, learned Government Pleader, is also supporting the impugned order. 6. After hearing the respective Counsel, we find that initially the application was moved by respondent No.8 and accordingly the corrigendum was issued on 31.10.2000, which was questioned by the petitioner by filing the Appeal before the Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Forest Department 3 and the State Government on 03.12.2008 has set aside that order/corrigendum and directed fresh consideration. The consideration by Hon’ble Minister for Revenue (State) and later order dated 12.04.2010 shows a finding that Section 31(1) of the above Act could not have been invoked as it was only for correction of arithmetical errors. As per remand orders of Hon’ble Minister for Revenue (State), the Superintendent of the Land Records has passed impugned order on 12.04.2010 and found that exercise under Section 32(1) of the above Act was essential. However, in the impugned order except the rival contentions, no reasons are assigned as to why such exercise of consolidation is necessary. The order only shows that the remedy under section 31(1) of the above Act is not available. Why recourse under Section 32(1) of the above Act became essential or then what was wrong with the consolidation scheme which was implemented way back in the year 1983-1984 has not been discussed anywhere. We, therefore, find that the order is without reasons and suffering from non application of minds. 7. Mr. Mohta, learned Counsel, however, has contended that there is no question of looking into such application of respondent no.8 after passage of such a long time. He has also pointed out that the Superintendent of the Land Records has on 3rd September, 2009 communicated to one Mr. Janardhan Dhole that as consolidation Scheme is over in 1993, therefore, there was no scope for any correction in it. We are not foreclosing this issue but are not also persuaded by arguments of learned Counsel. The 4 Hon’ble Minister for Revenue (State) has passed order on 03.12.2008 and petitioner has acquiesced in those orders and permitted the Superintendent of the Land Records to pass further order on 12.04.2010. Having found it adverse, the petition has been filed and thereby the order dated 12.04.2010 has also been questioned. Filing of review before State Government itself against the order dated 03.12.2008 is also of no consequence because petitioner has never opposed the prosecution of matter by the office of Superintendent of the Lands Records. Said step by Superintendent of Land Records is in furtherance of order of Hon’ble Minister and participation by petitioner in it, and taking a chance of favourable order, estopes him from pleading Review application in defence or to attack that order dated 12.04.2010 8. In this situation, we quash and set aside the order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the Superintendent of the Land Records. The said Authority shall hear the respective parties again on merits and thereafter if necessary, assign the reasons as to why particular course under the above mentioned Act is necessary in the present matter. Needless to mention here that all consequential steps taken in pursuance of order dated 12.04.2010 also stand quashed and set aside. 9. Petition is thus partly allowed. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No.6-Superintendent of Land Records, Amravati, on 27th September, 2011 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. The said Authority shall attempt to decide the case as early as 5 possible and in any case, within a further period of three months thereafter. JUDGE JUDGE Deshmukh