IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4632-4638 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.21856-21862 OF 2010)
Telangana Housing Board ……Appellant
Azamunnisa Begum (Died) Thru. Lrs. Ors. ….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The doubt for a care relates to a interpretation of Section 87 of a Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and a construction of a countenance ‘clerical error’. The serve doubt is possibly a ‘clerical error’ can be corrected “at any time” or usually within a reasonable time.
2. In a opinion, a improvement sought to be finished by a respondents is not a ‘clerical error’ and so a serve doubt unequivocally does not arise. However, a countenance “at any time’ can't be interpreted to widen over a duration of 25 years, as in a benefaction case.
Land Acquisition Proceedings
3. On 24th May, 1963 a presentation was released underneath a supplies of Section 4 of a Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Land Acquisition Act). The whole merger was of a few thousand acres comprising of dozens of consult numbers. Amongst others, a merger enclosed consult nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065 comprising of 1110.07 acres in Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District of Andhra Pradesh. The whole merger was for a purpose of a Housing Scheme of a Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) framed underneath Section 22-A of a Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956.
4. As is evident, a area was intensely vast yet it is accessible in divide 4 of a Land Acquisition Award that: “The lands underneath merger were got surveyed by a Measuring Circle Inspector of this bureau and were got checked by a G.D. Inspector of Hyderabad District, and areas of a lands underneath Acquisition were authorized by a Land Record Assistant. The Areas as authorized after consult and check are adopted in this Award.”
5. As distant as Survey No. 1009 is endangered an area of 661.04 acres was sought to be acquired. The presentation does not prove that usually a partial of Survey No. 1009 was sought to be acquired. There was no denote that 661.04 acres of land is usually a partial of a whole border of Survey No.1009. In fact, as suggested in a Award, a whole Survey No. 1009 along with a whole consult nos. 1043 to 1065 (along with several dozen other consult numbers) were sought to be acquired by a pronounced notification.
6. In divide 29 (b) of a Land Acquisition Award it is serve stated:
“The Special Deputy Collector Patancheru has sensitive vide his Lr. No.B1/341/67 antiquated 6.8.67 that he has acquired 5 acres 21 guntas out of consult series 1009 measuring 666.25 acres of Kukatpally village. The area tallies on a mark hence an area 5 acres 21 guntas is deleted from a area of consult no.1009 of Kukatpally and endowment is being inspected for a change area of 661.64 acres out of consult series 1009.”
7. At this stage, we competence discuss that an area of 5.21 acres in Survey No. 1009 was progressing acquired for a Manjeera Water Works Department and hence 661.04 acres was sought to be acquired by a pronounced notification.
8. The merger record resolved yet any conflict carrying been lifted by a respondents who were admittedly owners of a land. An Award was inspected by a Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Hyderabad on 10th June, 1968 and Survey No. 1009 was described in a Award as “dry lands full of rocks non-professional for cultivation and no cultivation is being done.”
9. On 24th June, 1968 a APHB took possession of all a acquired lands including whole consult nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065.
10. Dissatisfied with a endowment of compensation, a respondents filed a anxiety underneath Section 18 of a Land Acquisition Act. In a explain petition it was staid that consult nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065 contain of 1121.17 acres. However, remuneration was awarded usually for 1104.26 acres (5.21 acres relating to Manjeera Water Works Department was not enclosed in this calculation). Accordingly, it was staid that “11 acres and odd, they being a skill of a claimant, it is not acquired and they sojourn to be a skill of a claimant.”
It is poignant to note that a 11 acres and peculiar that was sought to be released from a merger record by a respondents was not specified or identified inasmuch as a consult series of this un-acquired area was not staid or earmarked by a claimants. It is most after that a respondents came to a end that a allegedly un-acquired 11 acres and peculiar was a partial of Survey No. 1009.
11. Be that as it may, a remuneration was extended and ultimately, staid by this Court someday in 1992. We are not endangered with a sum of a remuneration record any serve yet have mentioned it usually for a purpose of indicating that:
i) The whole area of consult nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065 was acquired. The merger consisted of outrageous areas and earthy measurements were carried out, surveyed, checked and authorized as per a income records.
ii) Possession of a whole land was taken by a APHB for a Housing Scheme.
iii) Although a respondents finished a acquiescence that 11 acres and peculiar was not acquired, this area was not identified or specified as being a partial of any sold consult series or even earmarked.
Proceedings relating to Section 87 of a A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F.
12. On 7th December, 1993 a respondents changed an focus underneath a supplies of Section 87 of a Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for brief a Act). In a application, it was staid that as per a income record per to Survey No. 1009 a land area is indeed 672.14 acres and it poorly shows a area reduction by 11.10 acres. It was staid in a focus that this area of 11.10 acres was in possession of a respondents.
It is for a initial time in 1993 that 11.10 acres was attributed to Survey No. 1009. Section 87 of a Act reads as follows:- “Settlement Officer to scold ecclesiastic and other errors certified by all parties and focus for improvement of name to be finished within dual years: The Director of Settlements and on origination over a allotment annals to a Collector, a Collector may, during any time, scold or means to be corrected any ecclesiastic blunder or errors certified by a celebration concerned.
The aforesaid officer shall hear all applications finished within dual years after a introduction of a settlement, for a improvement of any wrong entrance of a pattadar’s name in a register referred to in a preceding territory and if confident about a blunder possibly such blunder has been finished by negligence, fraud, or collusion shall scold a same, notwithstanding that a celebration endangered does not acknowledge a blunder yet no such focus shall be entertained after dual years, unless reasonable means is shown to a pronounced officer for a delay, and in such cases if any blunder is valid it shall not be corrected yet receiving a permit of a Government.”
13. Acting on a application, a District Collector requested a Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records for a consult of Survey No. 1009 and to repair a boundaries. The Assistant Director released notice to a APHB on 7th July, 1994 for a functions of carrying out a consult yet according to a APHB a notice was not received. In a opinion, a non-receipt of a notice is frequency of any relevance.
14. In any event, a Assistant Director submitted a Report on 5th August, 1994 to a District Collector. In his Report, it was resolved that a area of Survey No. 1009 was indeed 687.03 acres. This comprised of 661.04 acres (subject matter of care before us) and 5.21 acres progressing acquired for Manjeera Water Works Department. Therefore, according to a Assistant Director there was an additional of 20.18 acres that had not been acquired. It was also remarkable that IDL was in possession of some border of Survey No. 1009. No selection or sum were supposing of a area and plcae of a land in possession of IDL.
15. It is also poignant to note that while a respondents had been contending that there was an additional of 11.10 acres that had not been acquired, a Assistant Director came to a end that 20.18 acres had not been acquired.
16. At this stage, we competence take a slight diversion and impute to a Circular antiquated 15th October, 1994 released by a Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records. This Circular concerns itself with Section 87 of a Act it seeks to explain a ‘clerical error’ that could be rectified.
17. The germane portions of a Circular antiquated 15th October, 1994 are paragraphs 4 and 5 and they review as follows:-
“Clarification: There is no time border for interesting ecclesiastic errors, and District: Revenue Officer is efficient to perform ecclesiastic errors. The time border is prescribed usually for errors other than ecclesiastic errors. For improvement of errors other than ecclesiastic errors condonation of check is required, for that District: Revenue Officer alone is competent. However a District: Revenue Officer is not efficient to carryout improvement other than ecclesiastic errors yet a capitulation of a Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records.
Clarification: Section 87 of a Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli does not yield construction of ecclesiastic errors and errors other than ecclesiastic errors.
The ecclesiastic errors are teenager errors that do not engage alteration in area, change of classification, or change of name of a pattedar. A few examples of errors, that come underneath a difficulty of ecclesiastic errors, are furnished below:-
a. Name of a Pattedar misspelt.
b. Inter-change of consult numbers.
c. Survey no. blank in a consult map.
d. Area is distributed poorly yet dimensions on belligerent and annals support a scold area.
Since a construction of ecclesiastic blunder and errors other than ecclesiastic errors is not there in a Act, it is not scold to leave it to a visualisation of Assistant Director Survey and Land Records possibly sold consult blunder falls underneath a difficulty of ecclesiastic blunder or errors other than ecclesiastic error.
Therefore, a Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records shall send minute technical news to Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records, per due error. This is utterly a technical and non-statutory function. The news so sent shall be examined during Directorate possibly a blunder falls underneath a difficulty of ecclesiastic blunder or blunder other than ecclesiastic blunder and a fact will be communicated to Assistant Director Survey and Land Records.
On receiving clearway from a Directorate, a Assistant Director shall send a record to District Revenue Officer to dispose of a box during District Revenue Officers turn underneath Section 87 of a Land Revenue Act, if a blunder is a ecclesiastic error. If a blunder is other than ecclesiastic error, a District Revenue Officer, shall send proposals to Commissioner Survey Settlement and Land Records duly condoning a check as per manners for ordering of a box by Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, underneath Section 87-A of Land Revenue Act 1317 fasli.”
18. In response to a focus finished by a respondents underneath Section 87 of a Act and a Report given by a Assistant Director on 5th August, 1994, a Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records wrote to a District Collector on 19th April, 1995 acknowledging that there is no record of any tangible dimensions of Survey No. 1009 given it is a vast tract of land. He also staid that movement in calculating a area apparently in perspective of a hilly inlet of a land could be between 10% and 30%. The fact that all a consult numbers had been measured, as mentioned in a Award, was mislaid steer of.
19. Nevertheless, a Director staid that a dimensions practice undertaken by a Assistant Director is technically scold and a area of Survey No. 1009 is indeed 687.03 acres while a accessible area is 666.25 acres (which includes a land acquired for Manjeera Water Works Department). Therefore, according to a Director a movement is to a border of 20.18 acres. The Director also voiced a opinion that a dimensions blunder falls within a difficulty of ‘clerical error’ as mentioned in a Circular antiquated 15th October, 1994 and compulsory visual movement ought to be taken.
20. It is not transparent how a APHB learnt of a Report of a Assistant Director and a acceptance by a Director yet in any event, on 10th June, 1996 objections were lifted by a APHB before a District Collector to a Report and a preference to scold a income records.
21. On receipt of a objections, a District Collector referred a box to a Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad on 1st August, 1996 to cruise improvement of a dimensions error.
22. On 15th September, 1997 a Commissioner destined a District Revenue Officer to take movement in terms of a Circular of 15th October, 1994 given there was a ecclesiastic blunder in terms of divide 5 of a Circular. However, a Commissioner also destined that before flitting any orders underneath Section 87 of a Act a APHB should be heard.
23. It appears that a APHB was afterward listened by a District Revenue Officer who afterwards inspected an sequence on 9th June, 1998 final that in fact a area of Survey No. 1009 was 687.03 acres and that there was an additional of 20.18 acres that had not been acquired. This was as opposite a explain of a respondents that 11.10 acres had not been acquired. The District Revenue Officer resolved that a APHB had no right over a area of 20.18 acres and that compulsory corrections in terms of Section 87 of a Act should be made.
24. Feeling depressed by a sequence inspected by a District Revenue Officer that appears to have been supposed by a aloft authorities a APHB filed an interest before a Commissioner (Appeals) underneath Section 158 of a Act. This Section reads as follows:
“Appeal from sequence of Revenue Officer-
(1) Except as differently supposing in this Act for any other law for a time being in force, an interest shall distortion opposite any preference or sequence inspected by a Revenue Officer underneath this Act or any other law for a time being in force, to his evident higher officer possibly such preference or sequence competence have been inspected in a practice of strange office or on appeal.
(2) Subject to a supplies of a Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 F., (Regulation LX of 1358F.) an interest shall distortion to a Government from any preference or sequence inspected by a Collector or Settlement Commissioner solely in a box of any preference or sequence inspected by such officer on second or third appeal.
(4) xxx xxxxxx
25. On 24th March, 1999 a Commissioner (Appeals) inspected an ex parte sequence in a interest filed by a APHB for progressing standing quo.
26. It appears that in annoy of a standing quo sequence inspected by a Commissioner (Appeals) a income annals were corrected by arising a Supplementary Sethwar. Be that as it may, a respondents challenged a ex parte sequence antiquated 24th March, 1999 by filing a command petition in a Andhra Pradesh High Court on 5th April, 1999. The command petition was numbered as a W.P. No. 7940 of 1999. Among a drift taken by a respondents, in a command petition, was that a interest filed by a APBH was over time and an ex parte sequence ought not to have been inspected by a Commissioner (Appeals).
27. On 10th August, 2000 a schooled Single Judge conference a command petition inspected an halt sequence to appoint a land in possession of a APHB and possibly it is occupying 661.04 acres or more. In correspondence with a halt order, a Assistant Director gave a Report antiquated 23rd June, 2001 to a outcome that a area of Survey No. 1009 is 666.25 acres including 5.21 acres with Manjeera Water Works Department. It is critical to note that a Assistant Director did not news that a area of Survey No. 1009 was some-more than 666.25 acres.
In other words, there was a turn-around from a progressing decisions taken in this regard. It was reported as follows: “After regulating a bounds as staid above a land accessible within such bounds surveyed with a assistance of theodolite (traverse survey) and arrived a sum area as Ac.666.25 gts. that is tallied with a accessible area of consult no. 1009 as per consult records. The consult work is resolved on 11.6.2001.
The sum of land display earthy facilities within consult no.1009 arrived after minute consult are as under:-
1. Land underneath a possession of Housing Board lonesome by built adult area
2. Open land underneath possession of Housing Board
3. Land left for Graveyard/Burial belligerent by a Housing Board
4. Land underneath Manjeera Pipeline (Water works Dept.)
Total area of consult no. 1009
A blueprint of consult no. 1009 display a above sum is prepared and submitted herewith.”
28. On 31st October, 2001 a schooled Single Judge motionless W.P. No. 7940 of 1999 and destined a Commissioner (Appeals) to hear a interest and pass suitable orders. In a meanwhile, standing quo was destined to be maintained.
29. Pursuant to a directions given by a schooled Single Judge, a Commissioner (Appeals) listened a interest filed by APHB. By an sequence antiquated 4th January, 2003 a Commissioner (Appeals) inspected a perspective of a District Revenue Officer antiquated 9th June, 1998 and discharged a appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of opinion that
(i) Only 661.04 acres of land was acquired out of a incomparable area in Survey No.1009;
(ii) The explain finished by a respondents that 11.10 acres out of Survey No.1009 was not acquired was not a belated claim;
(iii) The improvement sought by a respondents in their explain underneath Section 87 of a Act was a improvement of a ecclesiastic blunder underneath divide 5 (d) of a Circular antiquated 15th October, 1994. Proceedings before a schooled Single Judge
30. Feeling depressed by a exclusion of a interest by a Commissioner (Appeals), a command petition was filed by APHB in a Andhra Pradesh High Court and that was numbered as W.P. No. 13927 of 2003.
31. A schooled Single Judge of a High Court listened a command petition and by a visualisation and sequence antiquated 19th April, 2005 authorised it and quashed a sequence of a Commissioner (Appeals).
32. The schooled Single Judge took a perspective that Section 87 of a Act was not germane to a box and as such a explain finished by a respondents was not maintainable. In addition, it was reason that a explain finished by a respondents does not tumble within a difficulty of a ‘clerical error’ and therefore a Circular antiquated 15th October, 1994 was also not applicable. The schooled Single Judge finished a anxiety to a disaster of a State and a respondents to furnish a record prepared during a time of consult that could have shown a wrong calculation of area. In this courtesy it was reason by a schooled Single Judge as follows: “Record prepared during a time of consult is not constructed to uncover that there is a wrong calculation of area, yet a dimensions on belligerent and record support a scold area.
So, entrance per border of S.No.1009 can't be pronounced to have been finished poorly due to a ecclesiastic mistake. By nearing during a area of a sold consult series by conducting consult thereof only, several decades after settlement, and yet contemplating a areas in other consult numbers adjacent to that consult number, doubt of a strange entrance in a allotment register was a wrong entrance as a ecclesiastic blunder or not can't be determined. There is zero on record to uncover that lands in adjacent consult numbers of S.No.1009 also were surveyed and as to what is a border found in such survey, and a border remarkable in a allotment register.”
33. With courtesy to a row that usually 661.04 acres had been acquired out of Survey No.1009, a schooled Single Judge remarkable that a stipulation had been filed by and on interest of a respondents underneath a supplies of a Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. In that stipulation there was zero to advise that a respondents were holding additional land that would have been so had a respondents been in possession of 11.10 acres. The schooled Single Judge celebrated as follows:-
“The row of Mir Fazeelath Hussain Khan and his heirs that given they are in tangible earthy possession of a land of Acs.11=10gts in S. No. 1009, even after merger by a petitioner, and so they can make a explain can't be countenanced given by a time A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973) and a Urban Land (Ceilings and Regulation) Act, 1976, came into force Mir Fazeelath Hussain Khan, who creatively filed a focus before a 3rd respondent, was alive, and had filed a stipulation underneath a Act 1 of 1973.
He showed a sum area lonesome by S. Nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065 belonging to him as Acs.1109-92 gts. That border was deleted from his holding as it was acquired and by a sequence antiquated 09-12-1976, vide common sequence in C.C.Nos.156 to 159/W/75 he was reason to be holding 0.4083 customary holding in additional even after deletion of an border of Acs.1109.92 gts in S. Nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065 of Kukatpally village. If Mir Fazeelath Hussain Khan unequivocally was in possession of or was owning any border over and above a area acquired by a postulant possibly in S. No. 1009 or 1043 to 1065, he would have had to obey that area also, given even yet that area being enclosed in his holding he was found to be holding land in additional of a roof area.”
“So, it is transparent that a family of Raisyar Jung was pronounced to be holding usually land to a border of Acs.349-63 cents in S.No.1007 yet not any land in S. No. 1009. This border of Acs.11-10 gts now pronounced to be in a possession of unaccepted respondents was not announced by them or their predecessors in a stipulation underneath Act 1 of 1973. Fazeelath Hussain Khan, who filed a petition before a District Revenue Officer, or any of a unaccepted respondents or their predecessors-in -title, been in possession of any border land in S. No. 1009 by 01.01.1975 they would have shown it in their stipulation filed underneath Act 1 of 1973. But they did not do so. For that reason also a row of a unaccepted respondents that they are in possession some land in S. No. 1009 and that a border of S. No. 1009 is some-more than that was acquired by a postulant can't be believed or accepted.”
34. The schooled Single Judge also dealt with a acquiescence on interest of a respondents that a APHB had no area standi to doubt a sequence inspected by a Commissioner (Appeals). It was remarkable that a APHB was a celebration to a record before a Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore it was entitled to doubt a inauspicious order. Moreover, when a authorities assume office that they do not possess underneath Section 87 of a Act and pass orders expected to impact a interests of a APHB, a right accrues to a APHB to doubt such orders inspected yet jurisdiction.
35. Since a schooled Single Judge resolved that a orders inspected by a District Revenue Officer and a Commissioner (Appeals) were yet jurisdiction, there was apparently no arise to confirm a doubt possibly a explain filed by a respondents was belated or not.
Proceedings before a Division Bench
36. Feeling depressed by a visualisation and sequence inspected by a schooled Single Judge on 19th April, 2005, command appeals being W.A. No. 1311 of 2005 and W.A. No. 1781 of 2005 were filed by a respondents severe a sequence inspected by a schooled Single Judge. By a impugned visualisation and sequence antiquated 25th September, 2009 a command appeals were authorised by a Division Bench and it is underneath these resources that a benefaction appeals are before us.
37. The High Court authorised a command appeals radically on dual submissions. It was reason by a Division Bench that a news of a consult authorities had reliable that a area of land in Survey No. 1009 was some-more than 661.04 acres. Admittedly, usually 661.04 acres had been acquired out of Survey No. 1009. Therefore, a APHB was entitled to reason usually 661.04 acres while a change had not been acquired and therefore a tenure remained with a respondents. According to a Division Bench, there was a ecclesiastic blunder in a dimensions area of Survey No. 1009 and therefore divide 5(d) of a Circular antiquated 15th October, 1994 was germane and a authorities were entitled to scold a calculation error.
38. The second belligerent given by a Division Bench was with anxiety to a supplies of a Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. In this context, it was reason that given a respondents were not holding a land, they could not have finished a stipulation as envisaged underneath a supplies of a pronounced Act and in any eventuality this was frequency of any aptitude given Survey No. 1009 indicates that a area of that consult series was larger than 661.04 acres. However, what is of stress is a end arrived during by a Division Bench that a respondents were not in possession of 11.10 acres in Survey No. 1009. Possession of a whole Survey No. 1009 was with a APHB.
39. In a opinion, a Division Bench of a High Court has severely erred in environment aside a sequence of a schooled Single Judge.
40. It is utterly transparent to us that a APHB had acquired, in terms of a Award antiquated 10th June, 1968 a integrate of thousand acres of land covering a few dozen consult numbers. The whole land was acquired and in perspective of a vast area of merger even if there was some blunder in describing a area of a sold consult number, that would be insignificant given a altogether merger and a purpose for a Housing Scheme underneath Section 22A of a Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act.
41. In addition, it is utterly transparent from a extracted passages in a Award, that a whole land in Survey No.1009 was acquired by a APHB. There can't be any doubt in this regard, utterly given a APHB also took possession of a whole Survey No.1009.
42. While it is scold that a respondents did row in their explain petition underneath Section 18 of a Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that 11 acres and peculiar had not been acquired, there was positively no anxiety to any consult series in that this 11 acres and peculiar was located. There was no transparent marker of a land, no bounds were mentioned nor was a land ear-marked in any demeanour and in fact even a accurate dimensions was not mentioned. It appears to us that a respondents were holding a potshot in a dim to somehow or a other keep possession of some of a acquired land.
43. If a respondents were assured that 11 acres and peculiar had not been acquired by a APHB in 1968 it is not distinct given no follow adult movement taken by them. They had an option, perhaps, of pierce opposite a APHB for being in prejudicial possession of 11 acres and peculiar owned by a respondents and they positively had a choice of relocating an focus underneath Section 87 of a Act. The respondents took conjunction of these stairs on an obligatory basement or any other step that competence have been accessible to them in law.
44. All that a respondents did was to wait for another 25 years and afterwards pierce an focus underneath Section 87 of a Act someday in 1993. There was no change in a significant conditions between 1968 and 1993 solely construction carrying been finished by a APHB in pursuit of a Housing Scheme. The respondents have given positively no reason for filing an focus underneath Section 87 of a Act after such an huge relapse of time. What has been submitted is that there is no time border for editing a ecclesiastic blunder and that being so, a respondents can't be non-suited on a belligerent of check and laches.
45. We are not in agreement with a respondents on any aspect of a case. First of all we establish with a APHB that an accurate design of a area in terms of dimensions of land in Survey No.1009 can't be entirely relied on after several decades and after construction carrying been made. The annals had creatively indicated that Survey No.1009 consists of 666.25 acres and we contingency ensue on that basement rather than assume a exactness of a dimensions carried out after several decades.
46. That a unexplained check in dimensions of a area can't be relied on is also upheld by a fact that even a income authorities were not utterly certain about a accurate area of Survey No.1009. According to a respondents, 11.10 acres had not been acquired yet according to a income authorities a whole area of Survey No.1009 was indeed 687.03 acres with a outcome that 20.18 had not been acquired. In perspective of this discrepancy, we are of opinion that surveys conducted post a presentation underneath Section 4 of a Land Acquisition Act can't be relied upon. We have also remarkable that it has come on record that IDL was also in possession of some tools of Survey No.1009.
We must, therefore, accept a fact that a whole Survey No.1009 was acquired by a APHB and possession taken, regardless of a tangible dimensions and a purported non-acquisition of 11.10 acres is zero yet a red herring. Consequently, a doubt of editing a ‘clerical error’ with anxiety to Section 87 of a Act does not arise.
A ecclesiastic error
47. In any event, it was contended by a respondents that a ecclesiastic blunder was sought to be corrected in a dimensions of a area of Survey No.1009. It is not transparent what a ecclesiastic blunder was. If a ecclesiastic blunder was that a area of Survey No.1009 was not 661.04 acres or 666.25 acres yet indeed 687.03 acres afterwards a row is self-defeating. This is given a area of Survey No.1009 would afterwards have to be review as 687.03 for all functions and not 661.04 acres. The outcome of this improvement would be that a merger was of 687.03 acres and not of 661.04 acres.
48. That apart, a improvement of a purported ecclesiastic blunder does not give arise to a evidence that usually 661.04 acres was acquired out of 687.03 acres. If a improvement gives arise to an evidence or contention, afterwards it ceases to be a improvement of a ecclesiastic blunder yet is unequivocally a improvement of a concrete error, that does not come within a reach of Section 87 of a Act.
49. Be that as it may, in M/s Tata Consulting Engineers v. Workmen1 Pathak, J. adverted to a ecclesiastic blunder and reason in divide 20 of a Report as follows: “The office given to a [Industrial] Tribunal by Rule 31 [Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957] is closely circumscribed. It is usually a ecclesiastic mistake or blunder that can be corrected, and a ecclesiastic mistake or blunder contingency arise from an random trip or repudiation in a award. An random trip or repudiation implies that something was dictated and discordant to that goal what should not have been enclosed has been enclosed or what should have been enclosed has been omitted. It contingency be a mistake or blunder fair to ecclesiastic improvement only. It contingency not be a mistake or blunder that calls for improvement by alteration of a unwavering adjudication on a issues involved.”
50. Similarly, a ecclesiastic blunder was discussed in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal.2 In divide 4 of a Report, anxiety was finished to Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa3 and it was reason as follows: “A ecclesiastic or arithmetical blunder is an blunder occasioned by an random trip or repudiation of a court. It represents that that a justice never dictated to say. It is an blunder apparent on a face of a record and does not count for a find on evidence or disputation. An arithmetical blunder is a mistake of calculation, and a ecclesiastic blunder is a mistake in essay or typing.”
51. More recently, in Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Gujarat 4 it was reason in divide 26 of a Report as follows: “An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, while a ecclesiastic mistake is a mistake of essay or typing blunder occurring due to random trip or omissions or blunder due to drifting mistake or omission. In a deliberate opinion, substituting opposite lands in place of a lands that have been told by a orthodox presentation underneath Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) [Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976] can't and shall not be finished by arising a corrigendum unless a imperative mandate contained in a aforementioned sections is complied with. A buyer can't be divested from his land on a defence of ecclesiastic or arithmetical mistake probable to be corrected by arising corrigendum.”
52. The Circular antiquated 15th October, 1994 clarifies a ecclesiastic error. Some examples have been given and one construction is to a outcome that a ecclesiastic blunder is where a area is distributed poorly yet dimensions on a belligerent and a annals support a scold area. This proviso is sought to be relied on by a respondents. It contingency be appreciated in this box that there is no doubt of a calculation blunder given no arithmetical blunder was committed as supposed by this Court. The area of Survey No.1009 was totalled and it was found to be 666.25 acres (including a area acquired for Manjeera Water Works Department).
The consult by a Measuring Circle Inspector, a check by a G.D. Inspector and authorized by a Land Record Assistant clearly prove this. This was sought to be ‘corrected’ by a respondents by claiming that a area of Survey No.1009 was most more. A calculation blunder would be, in a conditions such as a present, an blunder that would seem on a face of a request or a income records, as a box competence be. If there is a need to lift out a consult and a re-survey, a blunder can't by any means, be described as a ecclesiastic error.
53. What creates a conditions worse insofar as a respondents are endangered is that according to them a blunder was to a border of 11.10 acres yet on a consult carrying been conducted, a blunder was pronounced to be to an border of 20.18 acres. Surely, such a inequality can't be described as an random trip or a ecclesiastic mistake or a calculation error. It can usually be described as a vital blunder that ought to have been accurate during a suitable time in 1968 when a Award was inspected or shortly thereafter. To notice and make most happening about such an blunder after during slightest 25 years can't be supposed as a improvement of a ecclesiastic error.
54. Learned warn for a respondents referred to K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulum and Another5 to contend that a Circular antiquated 15th October, 1994 is a attendant carnival of a loyal state of affairs as supposed by a income authorities themselves and if they believed that a ‘clerical error’ ought to be interpreted in a demeanour described in a Circular, that interpretation contingency be accepted. The following thoroughfare was referred to and relied upon:
“The sequence of construction by anxiety to contemporanea expositio is a timeless sequence for interpreting a government by anxiety to a carnival it has perceived from contemporary authority, yet it contingency give approach where a denunciation of a government is plain and unambiguous. This sequence has been succinctly and felicitously voiced in Crawford on Statutory Construction, (1940 Edn.) where it is staid in para 219 that “administrative construction (i.e. attendant construction placed by executive or executive officers charged with executing a statute) generally should be clearly wrong before it is overturned; such a construction, ordinarily referred to as unsentimental construction, nonetheless non-controlling, is though entitled to substantial weight; it is rarely persuasive””.
55. Similarly, anxiety was also finished to Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd.6The following thoroughfare was relied on by schooled warn for a respondents. “The element of contemporanea expositio (interpreting a government or any other request by anxiety to a carnival it has perceived from contemporary authority) can be invoked yet a same will not always be wilful of a doubt of construction (Maxwell 12th ed. p. 268).”
56. It is no doubt loyal that a attendant carnival of a request contingency lift good weight yet if that carnival is not in accord with a law laid down by a Courts, including this Court, a carnival would not be relevant. We have finished a anxiety to several decisions that explain a construction of a ecclesiastic error.The perspective voiced in a Circular antiquated 15th October, 1994 utterly proviso 5(d) referred to and relied on by a respondents does not come within a 4 corners of a bargain of a countenance ecclesiastic blunder by this Court if it involves a consult and a re-survey as in this case. Therefore, no faith can be placed on a attendant carnival finished by a income authorities in a Circular antiquated 15th October, 1994.
57. We interpretation that there was no ecclesiastic blunder in a dimensions of Survey No.1009 for all intents and functions and that in any event, a whole land in Survey No.1009 was acquired for a Housing Scheme of a APHB.
Section 87 of a Act and check in origination a claim
58. We are also not confident with a check by a respondents in origination a explain underneath Section 87 of a Act. The row of a respondents is that given there is no time border specified for filing a explain petition, they could have finished a explain during any indicate of time, utterly for editing a ecclesiastic error.
59. It is now good staid that where no time-limit is specified, whatever is compulsory to be finished should be within a reasonable period. In Collector v. P. Mangamma7it was reason in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows: “A reasonable duration would count on a significant resources of a box concerned. There can't be any experimental regulation to establish that question. The court/authority deliberation a doubt possibly a duration is reasonable or not has to take into comment a surrounding resources and germane factors to confirm that question.
In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha8 it was celebrated that when even no duration of reduction was prescribed, a energy is to be exercised within a reasonable time and a border of a reasonable time contingency be dynamic by a contribution of a box and a inlet of a sequence that was sought to be varied………”. Reasonable, being a relations tenure is radically what is receptive according to a dictates of reason and not extreme or radical on a contribution and resources of a sold case.”
60. Similarly, in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao9 a practice of revisional office where no time-limit is specified was deliberate and it was reason in divide 31 of a Report as follows:
“To sum up, behind practice of revisional office is frowned on given if actions or exchange were to sojourn perpetually open to challenge, it will meant avoidable and unconstrained doubt in tellurian affairs, that is not a process of law. Because, even when there is no duration of reduction prescribed for practice of such powers, a inserted delay, competence have led to origination of third-party rights, that can't be trampled by a belated practice of a discretionary energy generally when no reasoning reason for a check is in sight. Rule of law it is pronounced contingency run closely with a sequence of life. Even in cases where a orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, a practice of energy contingency be within a reasonable duration of a find of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fake will not extend a time for a improvement to infinity; for differently a practice of revisional energy would itself be tantamount to a rascal on a government that vests such energy in an authority.”
61. Finally in Basanti Prasad v. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board10 it was forked out where third celebration rights are expected to be affected, a courts decrease to meddle yet if there is a prerequisite to meddle afterwards a depressed chairman should be listened on merits.
62. Insofar as a contribution of a benefaction box are concerned, a explain finished underneath Section 87 of a Act was after a duration of during slightest 25 years. This can frequency be described as a reasonable period. There is no reason for a lavish check and to make matters worse, third celebration interests have been combined by a Housing Scheme grown on a land in brawl or in any eventuality on a surrounding land. After a serve relapse of 25 years it is not probable to put a time back, even if there is any reason to do so, that reason we can't even visualize in this case.
63. It was submitted by schooled warn for a respondents that a APHB has no area standi to lift any brawl with courtesy to a dimensions of Survey No.1009. We are not during all in agreement with this submission. A tract of land measuring 11.10 acres out of Survey No.1009 was sought to be taken divided from a APHB that had announced a Housing Scheme underneath Section 22A of a Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 and third celebration rights had also been combined in this regard. The primary shortcoming of safeguarding a interests of a beneficiaries of a Housing Scheme was that of a APHB and positively it can't be pronounced underneath these resources that a APHB had no area standi to attend in a proceedings. In fact, even a income authorities recognized a area of a APHB in a sequence antiquated 15th September, 1997.
The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad destined a District Revenue Officer to take movement in terms of a Circular of 15th October, 1994 yet before flitting any orders underneath Section 87 of a Act, it was destined that a APHB should be heard. We therefore reject a row that a APHB had no area standi in a matter.
Interference on facts
64. The final acquiescence of schooled warn for a respondents was that a income authorities had come a significant end in their foster and a High Court ought not to have interfered with a significant conclusions and even this Court ought not to meddle with a significant conclusions arrived during by a income authorities. In a opinion, a income authorities had totally misdirected in law in reopening a significant emanate that had been staid approach behind in 1968 if not progressing and there was no arise for reopening that significant emanate after a relapse of during slightest 25 years. That being a position, it can't be pronounced that a courts are precluded from interfering in a matter of integrity of contribution when a authorities have totally misdirected themselves in law and exercised office that did not vest in them. We therefore also reject this acquiescence of a respondents.
65. To conclude, therefore, we reason that a whole Survey No. 1009 was acquired by a APHB for a Housing Scheme. No parcel of land in Survey No.1009 was left out or not acquired. Compensation was paid for merger of a whole Survey No.1009. The Division Bench of a High Court erred in final that 20.18 acres of land in Survey No.1009 had not been acquired.
66. We also reason that it is too uncomplicated on a partial of a respondents to contend that land in additional of 661.04 acres in Survey No.1009 was not acquired. This is positively not so and a whole Survey No.1009 was acquired. The acquiescence in this courtesy is rejected.
67. We also reason that a explain finished by a respondents underneath Section 87 of a Act was hopelessly behind for that there is positively no reason forthcoming. In addition, we reason that given third celebration rights have been combined in a duration underneath a Housing Scheme of a APHB and there is no approach to put a time back. The respondents ought to have been observant in posterior their claim, presumption a explain was legitimate, yet given they were not observant enough, they contingency humour a consequences of their inaction.
68. We also reason that a record underneath a Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 were of some outcome yet given a APHB has not relied on a record underneath a pronounced Act and schooled warn has usually mentioned it in passing, we do not intend to bottom a preference on a stipulation finished by a respondents underneath a pronounced Act.
69. We also reason that a APHB was directly and radically influenced by a explain finished by a respondents underneath Section 87 of a Act and therefore had a area standi to ensue before a Commissioner (Appeals), a High Court and this Court.
70. In perspective of a above conclusions, a visualisation and sequence inspected by a Division Bench is set aside and a appeals filed by a Telangana Housing Board are allowed.
(Madan B. Lokur)
May 1, 2018
1 1980 (Supp.) SCC 627
2 (1981) 1 SCC 500
3 AIR 1966 SC 1047
4 (2016) 4 SCC 531
5 AIR 1981 SC 1922″
6 AIR 1979 SC 1049
7 (2003) 4 SCC 488 during page 491
8 (1969) 2 SCC 187
9 (2015) 3 SCC 695
10 (2009) 6 SCC 791