NAMDEO NARAYAN KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 22/1/2018 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Sangli (DSLR) under section 31A of the The Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ('Act' for short). By the impugned order, the DSLR has directed the correction of the revenue map of Gat No.14, 15 and 16 of Village Hingangaon (Bk), Taluka - Kadegaon, District - Sangli. Incidently, the said correction has been made on the basis of an application filed by the second respondent, who is the owner of land Gat No.14. The petitioner happens to be the owner of land Gat No.15. It may be mentioned that the occupant of land Gat No.16 has not raised any challenge.

(2.) The brief facts are that the consolidation scheme under the said Act was made applicable to the concerned village in the year 1989 and the lands were allotted various Gat numbers. In the year 2005, a certain portion of land Gat No.14 belonging to the second respondent was subject matter of acquisition by the Government. It appears that the second respondent applied to the Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR), Pune on 29/6/2015, claiming that the revenue map after implementation of consolidation scheme is not drawn as per factual situation obtaining on the spot and therefore sought its correction. It appears that the owners of the adjoining gat numbers including the petitioners were noticed and the petitioner filed his objection to such correction. It was contended that the consolidation scheme has been made applicable, way back in the year 1989. A portion of land from Gat No.14 was acquired for purpose of irrigation canal and second respondent had not lodged any complaint or applied for correction of map within three years. It was contended that the Gat map is as per the position land of Gat No.14, 15 and 16 on the spot and there was no error in the revenue map requiring its correction.

(3.) It appears that on the basis of the said application filed by the second respondent, a proposal was moved by the DSLR Kadegaon in Form No.2 on 28/2/2017 in which the DSLR claimed that there was no error in the implementation of the consolidation scheme. However, the request for correction of the map was corrected. In short, DSLR has recommended for the correction as prayed by the second respondent.