1 WP 5884.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5884 OF 2011 Habibkhan Ameerkhan Pathan Died through L.Rs. Daud Kha S/o Habibkhan Pathan and others .. Petitioners Versus Yusuf Afzakha and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5892 OF 2011 Habibkhan Ameerkhan Pathan Died through L.Rs. Daud Kha S/o Habibkhan Pathan and others .. Petitioners Versus Sayed Pashu Sayed Baba and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5898 OF 2011 Habibkhan Ameerkhan Pathan Died through L.Rs. Daud Kha S/o Habibkhan Pathan 2 WP 5884.11 and others .. Petitioners Versus Sushil Shripal Gangwal and others .. Respondents Shri P. M. Shah, Senior Counsel i/by Shri Patel Shaikh Ashpak Taher, Advocate for Petitioners in all matters. Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate h/f Shri V. K. Patni, for the Respondent No. 1 in all matters. Shri G. K. Naik (Thigle), Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in all matters. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State in all matters. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Director Land Records, Aurangabad for correction in the area. Initially Survey Nos. 119, 120 and 121 were held by Habib Khan and Afzal Khan to the extent of 50% each. Thereafter, Sy. No. 120 was sub divided into Sy. Nos. 120/1 to 120/5. In the survey No. 120 which was sub divided the name of Habib Khan did not appear. Thereafter, the consolidation scheme was implemented and Sy. Nos. 119 and 121 formed Gat No. 202 and Sy. No. 120/1 to 120/5 formed gat Nos. 203 to 207. This was in 3 WP 5884.11 the year 1979. The name of Habib Khan did not appear in gat Nos. 203 to 207 and appeared in gat No. 202 to the extent of 50%. Thereafter, for the first time in the year 1995 Habib Khan moved an application before the Deputy Director Land Record, Aurangabad for correction stating that in the consolidation scheme different gut numbers were given to them and in gat No. 202 Habib Khan was possessor of 48.05 Acres. But in the consolidation record wrongly it has been shown as 50% and Afzal Khan was allotted land admeasuring 5 Acres 27G in Sy. No. 120 and Sy. No. 119, he has been allotted gat No. 202 to 207 and in the said application Habib Khan prayed to reduce the area of Afzal Khan from gat No. 202. The S. L. R. allowed the application and directed that area of Afzal Khan be reduced in gat No. 202. Appeal was filed before the Deputy Director Land Records, Aurangabad, who partly allowed the said appeal. Aggrieved thereby three revisions were filed before the Minister. The Minister of State allowed the said revisions. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petitions are filed. 2. Shri P. M. Shah, the learned senior counsel instructed by Shri Patel, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the mistake was committed by the authorities and for the mistake of 4 WP 5884.11 the authorities, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. It was the duty of the authorities to carry out the entries in the record of rights as per the record. The application was made for correction in the records before the revenue authorities and the S. L. R. also exercised the jurisdiction U/Sec. 255 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The said jurisdiction was rightly exercised. The Hon'ble Minister exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. The order passed by the Deputy Director Land Record or the order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records should have been confirmed. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that simply because the application was filed after 20 years, that would not be sufficient to negative the right of the petitioners. In fact, the authorities are suo moto required to correct the mistake committed by them. When it is not disputed that the Habib Khan and Afzal Khan have 50% share each in all the three survey numbers and their possession existed prior to consolidation, it was only a ministerial act to correct the same. 3. Shri Bajaj and Shri Thigale, the learned counsel for respondents supports the order. 4. It is not disputed that the civil suit between the parties is 5 WP 5884.11 pending. The petitioners have also instituted civil suit for partition and separate possession and the same is pending. The Minister of State while passing the impugned order has observed that the said is subject to the decision by the Civil Court in the civil suit i. e. pending. 5. The fact remains that the consolidation scheme was effected in the year 1979 and ceiling proceedings in the year 1975 and after long slumber of 20 years an application was filed by the petitioners for correction of the area. In the said application there is no explanation for such a long delay. Even if it is presumed that limitation for filing application is not prescribed, the same has to be filed within a reasonable period. 6. Moreover, the civil litigation between the parties is pending. Whether, there was a partition or family arrangement, or whether parties were in possession of the property as stated in the application by Habib Khan before the Deputy Director vide application dated 10th February, 1995, the same are disputed questions of fact which the Civil Court is required to consider. Suffice to state that the consolidation scheme was effected in the year 1979 and application for correction after 20 years could not have been entertained that too without any plausible 6 WP 5884.11 explanation. The proceedings under Ceiling Act were held in the year 1975 and land Sy. No. 120 was subdivided into Sy. Nos. 120/1 to 120/5. In that the name of Habib Khan did not appear. No objection was taken to the same by Habib Khan. In the year 1979 Consolidation Scheme was effected as per his holdings existing at that time. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the parties, as it has been observed that said decision is subject to the decision of Civil Court, wherein dispute between the parties is subjudice. 7. In the light of above, petitions are not entertained and same stand dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 8. Shri Patel, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the interim relief which was granted, be continued for further period of eight weeks. Said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for respondents. However, interim relief was granted and the same is continued for further period of four (4) weeks from today. After lapse of four weeks said relief would automatically come to an end. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11