JUDGMENT : Sachin S. Deshmukh, J. Objection is raised in the present petition to the order rendered by Secretary and Special Executive Officer (Appeal) of Revenue and Forest Department, allowing the appeal of the respondents. 2. In respect of village Pathri, Tehsil – Phulambri, District – Aurangabad, is concerned, the consolidation scheme was implemented in the year 1968. Petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land bearing original survey no. 21/1 admeasuring 2 Acre 9 Guntha, which is the ancestral property of the petitioner. 3. On the strength of the consolidation scheme enforced in the village, the Consolidation Officer effected the mutation entry no. 418 dated 07.02.1968. In the process, the land of the petitioner was re-numbered as gat nos. 47 and 48 admeasuring 2 Acre and 0.09 Are, respectively. Gut no. 48 originally was measured 0.09 Are, was erroneously recorded as 0.06 Are and was eventually re-numbered as survey no. 21/1/48. 4. Although, this correction was effected, however, not notified. Consequently, the petitioner had no occasion to know that clerical error had occurred during the process of consolidation scheme. 5. In an attempt to take undue advantage of this clerical mistake, respondents no. 1 to 5, for first time, presented an application on 30.12.2011. In response thereto, a notice was served upon the petitioner on 29.09.2012 informing that the measurement had been carried out and completed on 13.04.2012. 6. While deciding this application, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records upheld the claim of the respondents no. 1 to 5 in relation to the correction of area of survey no. 21/1 and submitted a report to that effect. In the process, the statements were also recorded. The office of the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, by its communication dated 10.04.2013, informed that although survey no. 21/1 is put to division, to gat no. 47 and 48, however, the land parcel was not put to actual division. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Superintendent of Land Records, rejected the application of the petitioner on the solitary ground that the scheme was implemented in the village prior to 42 years and the only clerical mistake, as contemplated under section 31A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter “ the Act of 1947 ”) could be corrected. It was further held that no correction can be effected in relation to section 32(1) of the Act of 1947, therefore, the application of the petitioner being time barred, was rejected. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records. While allowing the appeal of the petitioner, it was held that survey no. 21/1, originally measuring 2 Acre 9 Guntha belonging to the forefather of the petitioner, although was divided into gat no. 47 and 48. The respondents had no concern with the divided gat no. 48 and in the consolidation scheme, the names were wrongly recorded. 9. The respondents failed to submit sufficient evidence supporting such an entry. The recording of respondents names in gat no. 48, was regarded as a clerical mistake. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Superintendent of Land Records was quashed and set aside directing deletion of the name of the respondents from survey no. 21/A ademasuring 0.09 Are (re-numbered as gat no. 48) be deleted taking recourse to section 31A of the Act of 1947 and necessary corrigendum was issued on 05.06.2013. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Land Records, respondents no. 1 to 5 preferred an appeal before respondent no. 6. While allowing the appeal, respondent no. 6 held that the consolidation scheme was implemented in the village in the year 1968, necessary objection ought to have been raised within a period of three years following same principle, even the clerical error cannot be corrected, under section 31A of the Act of 1947, after three years, as such, allowed the appeal. Respondent no. 6 even has rendered a finding that error is clerical, however, on the touchstone of provision of section 32 of the Act of 1947, same can not be corrected. 11. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the scheme was implemented in the village in the year 1968, survey no. 21/1 which was admeasuring 2 Acre 9 Guntha has been sub-divided into gat no. 47 and 48, admeasuring 2 Acre and 09 Are, respectively. However, it cannot be regarded as it was implemented since the statutory compliance as is contemplated under section 22 of the Act of 1947 to the extent of the petitioner was never complied with. 12. 21/1 which was admeasuring 2 Acre 9 Guntha has been sub-divided into gat no. 47 and 48, admeasuring 2 Acre and 09 Are, respectively. However, it cannot be regarded as it was implemented since the statutory compliance as is contemplated under section 22 of the Act of 1947 to the extent of the petitioner was never complied with. 12. The implementation can be regarded as valid only if it is in conformity with the statutory provisions. At no point of time, the present petitioner was dis-possesed / divested from the land which is shown to have been reduced or compensated. Similarly, the respondents have not deposited the amount in relation to the ownership. Pursuant to the order of the Deputy Director of Land Records, a corrigendum was issued and the order rendered in favour of the petitioner is implemented by the Deputy Director of Land Records, taking recourse to Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Rules on 09.10.2013. 13. Attention of this Court is also invited to the communication dated 09.10.2013 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records upholding the objection of the petitioner and eventually effecting the correction on 29.11.2013 and accordingly, correction stood effected in the 7/12 extract. 14. Mr. Salunke has placed reliance on the following judgments : i) Tulshiram S/o Shivram Dhondkar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Judgment dated 12.10.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 8737 of 2021); ii) Babaji Kondaji Garad Vs. Nasik Merchants Co-opeartive Bank Ltd.; 1984 AIR(SC) 192, and iii) Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd.; 2003(2) SCC 111 , to contend that if a particular thing is required to be done in a particular manner under the statute, it has to be done in the said manner alone and in no other manner. Departure from prescribed procedure renders the action invalid. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the scheme is implemented before 42 years, as such, applying the doctrine of delay and laches, it was not open for the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. It is further submitted that application of the petitioner is not maintainable under section 31A of the Act of 1947 and in-fact, an attempt is made to take the benefit of the said provision. It is further submitted that application of the petitioner is not maintainable under section 31A of the Act of 1947 and in-fact, an attempt is made to take the benefit of the said provision. Admittedly, the application relates to section 32 of the Act of 1947, as such, respondent no. 6 is justified while allowing the appeal presented by the respondent. 16. In support of same, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in the cases of - (i) Telangana Housing Board Vs. Azamunnisa Begum (Died) Through LRs. And others; 2018(7) SCC 346 , (ii) Joint Collector Ranga Reddy Dist. and others etc. Vs. D. Narsing Rao and others Etc. Etc.; 2015(3) ACC 695, (iii) Padmabai Narayan Chaudhary V. Deputy Director of Land Records Aurangabad; AIROnline 2020 Bom 126 and (iv) Gulabrao Bhaurao Kakade (Smt.) Vs. Nivrutti Krishna Bhilare & Others; 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 3. 17. Learned AGP support the order, adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 18. Having heard the respective counsel for the litigating sides, perusal of record. It is a matter of record that the consolidation scheme was implemented in the village in the year 1968. The mode and manner of implementation of the scheme is governed and regulated by the statutory scheme as is contemplated under the provisions of Act of 1947. 19. At this juncture, it would be apt to record that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had occasion to deal the scheme in detail in the case of Tulshiram Shivram Dhondkar (supra), which underscores the mandatory compliance with provisions of the Act of 1947. Relevant paragraph nos. 30, 36 to 40 read thus:- “30] In the instant case, the scheme is confirmed under Section 21 (1) of the 1950 Act on 23.03.1977. However, there is no date known when the scheme came into force under Section 22 of the Act qua the present petitioners. The scheme comes into force individually and the entire scheme does not come into force at once, it comes into force partially when in compliance of Section 21 a person entitled to the holding is put in possession of the holding i.e. the date when the possession of the holding is handed over to each of the entitled person. The scheme comes into force individually and the entire scheme does not come into force at once, it comes into force partially when in compliance of Section 21 a person entitled to the holding is put in possession of the holding i.e. the date when the possession of the holding is handed over to each of the entitled person. The power under Section 32 of the Act to vary the scheme has been consistently held by this Court has to be exercised ordinarily within 3 years from the date of scheme coming into force and thus limitation does not commence from the date of confirmation of the scheme, which is published in the official gazette. The date on which the consolidation scheme comes into force would depend on the possession of each individual holding being handed over to the entitled person after following due process. If the Settlement Commissioner is of the view that further process as contemplated under Section 21 in respect of deposit of compensation and grant of compensation, eviction of the occupant and transfer of possession has not taken place and only confirmation of the entire scheme has taken place under Section 21 (1), the Settlement Commissioner is entitled to exercise jurisdiction under Section 31A and 32 of the Act. .... 36] Thus the authority on examination of relevant record has rendered a finding that the land purchased by the petitioners is far less than what they are shown to be entitled to under the consolidation scheme. The excess lands are not put in possession of the petitioners in compliance of the procedure under Section 21 of the Act. It is also relevant to note that to put the petitioners in possession of the additional as shown in the confirmed scheme, the respondents owners of land, who were in possession ought to have been evicted from the land before handing over the possession of the excess land. In absence of physical eviction of the respondents owners of the land, it cannot be said that the petitioners are put in possession of the excess land. There is no evidence of eviction of respondents – owners from the excess land. Mere mutation entry on the basis of confirmed scheme does not confer right to the petitioners on the excess land which is not put in possession in enforcement of the scheme under Section 21 of the Act. There is no evidence of eviction of respondents – owners from the excess land. Mere mutation entry on the basis of confirmed scheme does not confer right to the petitioners on the excess land which is not put in possession in enforcement of the scheme under Section 21 of the Act. 37] It is to be noticed that under Section 16 of the Act whenever a person is granted land / holding of the larger value under the consolidation scheme then the person who looses the land has to be compensated by computing compensation by applying the principles of the Land Acquisition Act. After the scheme is finalized and confirmed under Section 21 (1), the scheme has to be enforced. The person, who gets the excess land, is required to deposit the amount as determined under Section 16 of the Act. The amount deposited has to be paid to the person who looses the land. Although the person entitled to larger holding can be put in possession prior to the deposit of compensation, it is held by the impugned order that there is no evidence that the petitioners are put in possession of the larger holding. 38] The authority has in the impugned order held that the petitioners are not put in possession of the additional land as shown in the confirmed scheme under Section 21 of the Act and thus the petitioners are merely holding the excess land on paper. For the excess land, compensation is not determined and deposited and paid and thus the record indicates that the process as contemplated under the Act qua the determination and payment of compensation for the excess land has not been initiated and completed. Thus, the Authority constituted under the Act has arrived at a finding that there is clerical error of showing excess land in the name of purchasers and has invoked it’s powers under Section 31A of the Act and has directed for rectification / correction in the entries. 39] In the instant case, the changes are made, on account of clerical mistakes in noting the area, as such there is no corresponding change in the consolidation scheme and there is no change in the gat numbers. It is only the areas mentioned qua respective owners i.e. found to be defective and sought to be rectified. 39] In the instant case, the changes are made, on account of clerical mistakes in noting the area, as such there is no corresponding change in the consolidation scheme and there is no change in the gat numbers. It is only the areas mentioned qua respective owners i.e. found to be defective and sought to be rectified. Section 32 of the Act would come into play when at the time of making correction, the gats are to be re-organized and there is variation in the scheme. In the instant case, the authority has rightly come to the conclusion that powers under Section 31A of the Act needs to be exercised to correct the clerical errors as there is no variation in the scheme but mere recording of correct ownership of the respective owners, in the existing gat numbers. 40] In the instant case, the consolidation scheme is not enforced under Section 21 of the Act with respect to the petitioners qua the excess lands mentioned in the scheme. The respondents are not evicted from the excess land after payment of compensation as such there is no delay in filing the application for correction of scheme. It cannot be presumed that the respondents lost their land without payment of compensation, so also the lands are not exchanged. Non payment of compensation to the respondents would violate the constitutional right to property of the respondents under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. There is no assertion made by the petitioners that the petitioners have deposited compensation for the excess land granted to them under the scheme. The excess land in favour of the petitioners is merely shown in the confirmed scheme.” 20. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Babaji Kondaji Garad (supra) lends support to the submissions that if the statute prescribes a manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner and not otherwise. Slightest departure with the same would render act invalid. 21. The Act of 1947 unequivocally mandates strict compliance with every statutory stage, in its letter and spirit. Statutory provisions cannot be annihilated in the manner which would render the provision redundant. Slightest departure with the same would render act invalid. 21. The Act of 1947 unequivocally mandates strict compliance with every statutory stage, in its letter and spirit. Statutory provisions cannot be annihilated in the manner which would render the provision redundant. The statutory provisions are aimed to protect the rights and cannot be reduced to procedural formality, as is attempted by the respondents while contending that the scheme was implemented in the village in the year 1968 itself. No material has been produced on record by the respondents, to establish that the scheme was implemented on the touchstone of the statutory provision. The possession of petitioner was never divested and vested with the respondents no. 1 to 5. 22. Various stages are contemplated, more particularly, under section 16, 20(1), 21(1), 21(3), 22, 31A and 32 of the Act of 1947 must be followed for the implementation of the scheme. 23. Although the scheme was introduced in the year 1968, its implementation at the individual level as per section 21 requires actual transfer of possession. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 were admittedly never put in possession. Attempt to dispossess the petitioner was made only in the year 2011. Unless a person is actually put in possession, the scheme cannot be regarded as implemented under section 21 of the Act of 1947. Thus, there is no evidence indicating compliance with the statutory requirement of compensation, eviction of earlier occupant, and transfer of possession. Thus, it can be held that the scheme to the extent of petitioner, was never implemented. 24. The date on which the scheme is implemented or brought into force under section 21, is significant and rather relevant date for all further legal consequences. A person losing the land, must divest possession and compensated by the person entitled under the scheme. 25. The judgment relied by the respondents, is of no assistance as it concerns to applicability of section 32 and relates to correction sought beyond the period of limitation i.e. beyond three years from confirmation of the consolidation scheme where such correction is held to be impermissible. As is stated herein-above, in absence of any material, it cannot be regarded that the scheme was implemented in relation to the present petitioner, since the petitioner was never divested of possession from the subject land nor was the possession ever vested with the respondents. As is stated herein-above, in absence of any material, it cannot be regarded that the scheme was implemented in relation to the present petitioner, since the petitioner was never divested of possession from the subject land nor was the possession ever vested with the respondents. In fact, it was in the year 2011, the respondents started obstructing the possession of the petitioner. 26. There is no material on record placed by the respondents to indicate and establish that possession of the petitioner was ever divested and vested with the respondents no. 1 to 5 upon deposit of the compensation amount. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to make reference to Article 300A of the Constitution of India which recognizes the constitutional right of the individuals to protection of the property. Although this right to property, no longer a fundamental right, however, still remains a constitutional and human right. As such, same can not be tinkered with, except by authority of law. 27. As it has been recorded earlier the petitioner was never evicted from the land nor were the respondents put in possession, except for the mere recording of their names by way of mutation entry no. 418 dated 07.02.1968. As such, it cannot be regarded that the scheme was implemented in respect of the present petitioner under the provision of Act of 1947. Thus, there is no evidence that the respondents were vested with possession vis-a-vis the petitioner was divested of the possession from the subject land. As such, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that in absence of actual divesting of possession by the petitioner and vesting of possession of the respondents of the land pursuant to the mutation entry no. 418 dated 07.02.1969. 28. Thus, on account of clerical error in recording the area, land belonging to the petitioner was indicated as reduced, while increasing the area of the land belonging to the respondents, in absence of transfer or handing over of possession to the respondents, it cannot be held that the scheme was implemented qua the present petitioner. 29. The correction relates to the area recorded in relation to the respective owners and being a clerical error one, is required to be rectified. 30. 29. The correction relates to the area recorded in relation to the respective owners and being a clerical error one, is required to be rectified. 30. Resultantly, the order of the Deputy Director of Land Records permitting correction, being of a is clerical nature and referable to section 31A of the Act of 1947, has been validly effected. 31. In that view of the matter, unsustainability of the order of respondent no. 6 is apparent. Accordingly, same is quashed and set aside. 32. Writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). 33. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.