Article 300-A Rights Cannot Be Denied Due To Revenue Mistakes: Bombay HC

In Rama S/o Gunda Malkapure v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A cannot be taken away because of incorrect revenue records maintained by authorities. The Court held that citizens cannot suffer due to mistakes committed during implementation of land consolidation schemes.

Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre passed the ruling while hearing a petition filed by a landowner whose agricultural land area was allegedly reduced in official records after a consolidation scheme was implemented in Maharashtra.

The petitioner had purchased the agricultural land through a registered sale deed in February 1982. According to him, he originally owned 82 R of land. However, after the consolidation process, the revenue records reflected only 28 R in his name.

The dispute reached the High Court after a Minister set aside an earlier order of the Deputy Director of Land Records, which had directed restoration of the original revenue entries in favour of the petitioner.

The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the registered sale deed or the civil court decree declaring the petitioner as the lawful owner of the property. It also observed that the authorities failed to explain how the land area was reduced so drastically in official records.

The High Court emphasised that revenue authorities are custodians of public land records and are responsible for maintaining accurate entries. A citizen, the Court said, cannot be blamed for errors committed by government officials.

Referring to the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, the Court explained that the purpose of consolidation is to improve agricultural cultivation and reorganise fragmented holdings. It is not meant to deprive landowners of their land.

The Court further observed that provisions under Sections 15A, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act make it mandatory for authorities to issue notice to landholders and consult village committees before finalising a consolidation scheme.

Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that the petitioner approached the authorities after a long delay. It clarified that neither the 1947 Act nor the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code prescribes a limitation period for correcting such revenue mistakes.

The Court held that if no proper notice was given to landholders, delay alone cannot be used to deny restoration of property rights.

While setting aside the Minister’s order, the Court observed, “The right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India cannot be defeated on the basis of erroneous entries.”

The High Court also stated that landowners cannot be deprived of property because of inadvertent or haphazard implementation of consolidation schemes by authorities. Calling the Minister’s findings “perverse and unsustainable,” the Court allowed the writ petition and restored relief in favour of the petitioner.