Rama S/o Gunda Malkapure v. The State of Maharashtra held -Property Rights Cannot be Taken Aaway on Technical Grounds of Delay

Jojy George Koduvath

The Bombay High Court (J., Siddheshwar S. Thombre), Aurangabad Bench, in Rama S/o Gunda Malkapure v. The State of Maharashtra, 2026:BHC-AUG:20436, has held that a legal-constitutional right cannot be taken away on technical grounds of delay when the fault lies with the authorities. It is held as under:

• “51. In the present case, the learned Minister has set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities by observing that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was set aside in Regular Civil Suit No.47/2002. However, the record indicates that no such finding was recorded setting aside the petitioner’s sale deed. On the contrary, the petitioner’s title has already been declared by the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Minister are perverse and unsustainable. Considering the aforesaid discussion and adopting the same view as taken in the above cited judgments, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petitions thereby setting aside the impugned orders. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:-
• i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 06.06.2017 passed by the learned Minister is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. iv) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

Case of the Petitioner

The petitioner, purchased agricultural land under a registered sale deed. Despite his clear title and possession, the subsequent implementation of a consolidation scheme resulted in his land area being erroneously recorded in the revenue records.

The reduction in the petitioner’s area was a result of haphazard implementation and failure to follow the procedure under Section 15A(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, which requires notice to landowners.

The Petitioner stated in the Writ Petition – once the petitioner’s title had already been declared by the Civil Court and the said decree had attained finality, the learned Minister ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the revenue authorities. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

Right To Property Under Article 300-A

The Court pointed out as under:

• “The right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India cannot be defeated on the basis of erroneous entries. The right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution reads as under:-
• CHAPTER IV.–RIGHT TO PROPERTY 300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. –
• “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”

No Limitation forSeeking Corrections To Revenue Entries

The Court pointed out that no specific period of limitation is stated either in the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and in the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 or in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Therefore not bars for an an owner for seeking corrections to such entries. It was also found that the failure of authorities to issue statutory notices often prevents landowners from discovering errors in real-time.

It was observed by the court as under:

• “Merely because the consolidation scheme was implemented earlier, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his property, particularly when the reduction in area occurred due to incorrect revenue entries. The right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India cannot be defeated on the basis of erroneous entries…”.

It was further observed –

•  “The purpose of the consolidation is to consolidate the differentiated smaller holding of the land holder into a consolidated holding for better cultivation thereof. The object of the Act is not to reduce or increase the holding of the land owner as it would infringe his right to property which is legal-constitutional rights. The purpose is to create and maintain a consolidated record of holding by assigning appropriate unified survey number.”
•  “There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the agriculturists are aggrieved by the record created after enforcement of scheme. The consent as required under Section 15A of the Act was never obtained and no compensation was paid to the agriculturists whose holding has been reduced. It is not even the case that the agriculturists whose holding was increased were paid compensation. The procedure prescribed for recovery of compensation was not initiated. Section 16 provides for compensation. The agriculturist who is allotted holding of less market value than that of his original holding has to be paid compensation. Whereas, the land owner who is allotted holding of greater market value than that of his original holding has to pay compensation”.

Read also:

• Revenue Records, ‘Mutation’ & Survey Records will not Confer Title; They merely Raise a Presumption on Possession
• Title is Not Proved by Revenue Entries; Title Claims are Investigated by Civil Courts, Not by High Courts
• Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting Documents
• Survey Records under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption of Correctness on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
• Fraudulent or Void Transaction: No ‘Declaration’ Required
• Title of Property: As the Government is regarded as the ‘original’ and ‘ultimate’ owner of all land, private persons to prove their title, the State need not.
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• Ultimate Ownership of All Properties Vests in the State. It is an Incident of Sovereignty, and the Government is the Paramount Title Holder also.