The Mistake That Went Unnoticed for Decades

In 1968, when the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act was implemented in Pathri, Kachru Bansod’s ancestor owned Survey No. 21/1 measuring exactly 2 acres 9 gunthas. Under the consolidation scheme, this block was neatly divided into two new gat numbers:

• Gat No. 47 → 2 acres (stayed with Bansod family)
• Gat No. 48 → 9 aare (0.09 are) (also meant to stay with Bansod family)

A clerk’s fingers slipped on the typewriter. Instead of writing 9 aare against the Bansod name, only 6 aare were recorded, and the remaining 3 aare (and in some records the entire 9 aare) were mistakenly entered in the name of Vijay, Kakaji, Kishor Pathrikar and others. Mutation Entry No. 418 dated 7 February 1968 quietly carried forward this error.

No one was physically dispossessed. The Bansod family continued to plough, sow and harvest the entire land, including the disputed 9 aare, generation after generation.

The Sudden Claim After 43 Silent Years

Everything remained peaceful until 30 December 2011, when the Pathrikar family suddenly woke up to the 1968 entry and filed an application demanding possession of the 9-aare piece. They claimed the 1968 record proved it was theirs.

Kachru Bansod, then 66 years old, was shocked to learn that a piece of his ancestral field had been “gifted” to neighbours only on paper. He fought back, insisting it was a pure clerical mistake.

The Long Battle Through Revenue Courts

• 2013: Superintendent of Land Records rejected Bansod’s plea, saying “42 years have passed; only minor clerical mistakes can be corrected”.
• 5 June 2013: Deputy Director of Land Records overturned that order, declared it a clear clerical error under Section 31A of the 1947 Act, deleted the Pathrikar names from Gat No. 48, and issued a corrigendum. The 7/12 extract was corrected in November 2013.
• 2015–2025: Pathrikar family appealed to the State Government. The Secretary & Special Executive Officer (Respondent No. 6) allowed their appeal, ruling that even clerical mistakes cannot be corrected after three years of the scheme becoming final.

Justice at Last: Bombay High Court’s Landmark Verdict

On 21 November 2025, Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh delivered a powerful 33-page judgment quashing the State Government’s order and restoring the 2013 correction.

Key findings of the Court:

• A consolidation scheme becomes effective for each landholder only when actual possession is handed over after following due process (eviction + payment/deposit of compensation).
• Mere mutation entry does NOT mean the scheme was implemented.
• No one ever evicted the Bansod family. No compensation was ever calculated or paid. The Pathrikar family was never put in possession.
• Therefore, the 3-year limitation for major changes does NOT apply. A pure clerical mistake can be corrected under Section 31A even after 57 years.
• Depriving a family of land without due process would violate Article 300A of the Constitution (right to property).

The Court relied heavily on its own recent decision in Tulshiram Dhondkar vs State of Maharashtra (2023) which laid down the same principle.

A Quiet Victory for an Elderly Farmer

The corrected revenue records now show the entire 2 acres 9 gunthas, including the full Gat No. 48 (9 aare), squarely in the Bansod family’s name, exactly as it should have been in 1968.

Sometimes, all it takes is one honest judge to fix a 57-year-old typo.

Also Read: MMR Records Highest Land Transactions in 2024: Over 607 Acres Acquired in 30 Deals

The post 57-Year Clerical Error That “Stole” a Family’s Land on Paper Finally Corrected appeared first on Square Feat India.