G. Rangamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

I^s2s5 I

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

Between

¶7

1.G '^Rangamma, wo. Late Gunti or Mangali Rama Kistaiah Housewife Rlo 2. c.H. No'1-53, Neknamn-ur V1!!ag9, Rrigt"to"rrigog Manoai, nung, Reddy District. 3. G.H. No. srinivas, 1 -53' Neknamour s/o. Late -Guiti' Vieoe, na;e-noeinq.g{ or-'Mangaii"Rar;'iiiJtri"n ruJnq;,'Hrrg, Agricutture Reddy District.R/o. H. .,t")rllgj, No. 1 -53, Nekna .s/o. mpur 'Late Viilage, eJnii ni;enoe.r"nad o7 rr,iing"fl narna IVffi ,i;i] kist"irn H"ng, Rgricurture Reddy District.R/o.

¶8

...PET|T!ONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

1 . The Government of Andhra pradesh, Reptd. by its principal secretary, -HvoL-[oi j.,

¶11

Revenue Depa rtment, _secretari;i

¶12

The District Revenue officer. Htd;ab;BiIiiict, Having its office at Hyderabad

¶13

The Deputy Director, Suryey and Land Records, Hyderabad District, Having its office at Namparv statioh noaor*vo;;i,+

¶14

...RES,.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate WRit or writs, order or orders calling the entire records pertaining to the orders dated 07-0g-2010 in Memo No' 9733/SS-1/2008-2 of respondent No. 1 which is on the appeal filed by Late Gunti or Mangali Rama Kistaiah who is the husband and father of petitionls respectively under Section 158 of A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli against the Memo dated 28-01-2008 in Lr. No. A3/33 gt2oo4 issued by the 3rd respondent and set aside the same as it being iltegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice.

I

7

I

I.A. trtO: I^{OF 20f} 0(WPMP. NO: 39835 OF 2010)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Orders dated 07-09-2010 in Memo No. €1733/SS-1 t2oog-2 of respondent No. 1, pending disposal of Writ petition.

¶21

COUNSEI fOT thE PEtitiONETS: SRI RESU MAHENDER REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the foltowing: ORDER

/_re

6

{

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶27

l[I.P. No.313O5 of 2O1O

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The petitioners are^{aggrievedby the order dated 07 .O9.2O|O} passed vide Memo^{No.9733/SS-1l2OO8-2by the respondentNo'1,} Principal Secretary to^{Government,wherein and'wherebydismissed} the appeal preferred^{by the father of the petitioneragainstthe order} datcd 28.OL.2OOg^{vide Lr.No.A3/338} /2OO4,^{passed by the Director,} Survey and Land Records,^{in the present writ petition'}

¶30

Facts of the case, in^{a nutshell,are that the petitioners claims} to be the absolute^{owners and possessorsof land in Sy.No.151 of} Ibrahimbagh village,^{Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, having} acquired the same by^{way of succession from their ancestors. During} the life time of their^{father, they were eking out their livelihood by} doing agriculture in the^{said land. Inthe year2OO3,their} neighbourers surveyed their^{lands and fixed its boundaries.As such,} petitioners'father made an^{applicationto the MandalRevenue Officer} to demarcate their extent^{of land and lix the boundaries.The Mandal} Surveyor, Golconda Mandal,^{conductedsurvey inSy.No.151 of} Ibrahimbagh village and^{orally informed that an extentof Acs.2.02} gts., and odd land is available^{in Sy.No.151,but as per Pahaniand} Wasoolbakhi, it is recorded^{as Ac.1.19 guntas on the said survey} number. Thereafter, the^{Mandal Revenue Officer had issued Memo} dated 21.O5.2OO4 in File^{No.D.1945/2OO3admitting the fact that the}

¶31

I /

¶32

2 !MK, J W.P. No.313OS of 2oro

¶33

total extent of iand in Sy.No.15i physically did not tally with the area recorded in *re Tippon availabre in their office and directed the applicant to approach the competent authority fcrr demarcation of actual area' consequently, the father of the petitioners made an application on 2s.os.2o04 and 2g.os.2oo4 before the respondents No.2 and 3, District Revenue officer and Deputy Director, respectivery, with a request to rectify the actual extent of Acs.2.10 guntas in Sy'No'151 which is in their physical possession in all revenue records by deleting the extent of Ac.1.19 guntas. upon which, the respondents No.2 and 3 conducted survey and fixed the boundaries of sy.No.151 and conducted panchanama on 2g.og .2oo4 measured the land in their physical possession to an extent of Acs.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.151 as per Tippon.

¶34

3' while so, after conducting survey, the respondents No.2 and 3 instead of issuing orders for rectifying the clericar error, kept the matter pending for four years and the re-spondent rvo.3 issued the Memo dated 2g.or.2oog contending that the error cannot be treated as clerical and it is not a fit case to be entertained under Section g7 0f The A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 13r7F since it is fired after a lapse of Fifty years. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 himself requested the respondcnt No.2 under Lr.No.A3/a38/2oo4 dated 23.og.2oo.5 as the error is a calcuration error which can be classified as clerical Assailing the same, father of the petitioner preferred an Appeal on 18.02.2OO9 before the

¶35

I'IVSK, J W.P. lto.3l3o5 of^2OlO

¶36

J

¶37

respondent No.l and^{as the same could not be taken up for hearing,} had filed W.P. No.28318^{of 2008. This Court by an order dated} 2T.L2.2OOB disposed of^{the writ petition with a direction to the} respondent No.1 to^{consider and decide the appealbearing} No.9733/SS-1 I2OOS-1,^{within a period of two monthsfrom the date of} receipt of a copy of^{the order. Based on the said order, the respondent} No.1 considered and^{dismissed the appeal vide orderdated} 07.og.2o1o on^{the ground of delayunder Section87 of the A.P. (T.A.)} Land Records Act,^{1317F and thus the orderspassed by the Deputy} Director, Survey and^{Land Records, in Memo No.A3/3381O4dated} 28.O:^20O8 were^{confirmed.Aggrieved by the impugnedorder dated} O7.O}.2OLO,^{petitioners, being the legal heirs of the Applicant/} petitioner, filed the^{presentwrit petition.}

¶38

While denying the^{writ averments,respondent No' lfiled counter} affidavit and substantiated^{the contentsof the impugned orderdated} O7.O}.2O1O passed^{by the respondentNo.l and submittedthat the} respondent No.1^{rightlydismissed the appeal'}

¶39

The learned Senior^{Counselfor the petitionerswould submit} that the petitioners^{are the absolute ownersand possessors of land in} Sy.No.151 acquired^{through their ancestors. During the course of} survey, it was found^{that the land available in Sy-No.15t is Acs'2'O2} guntas and odd but as^{per Pahani, Wasool Baki it is recordedas} Ac.1.19 guntas on^{the said survey number. LearnedSenior Counsel} has drawn the attention^{of this Court to the Memo No.D.1945l2OO3,}

¶40

4 *.,. n".il"X?ir ro,o

¶41

.

¶42

dated 2L'os.2o04 wherein the ,Vlandar Revenue officer has informed that during the demarcation of rand in sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh village, it was reported that the total extent of the ran,r in Sy.No.r5r of Ibrahim Bagh village is not talrying with the area recorded in the 'rippan available in the office and directecl the petitioner to approach the competent authority for demarcation of said area consequentry, petitioners made an application with a request to re:c1ify the actual extent of Acs.2.10 guntas in sy.No.151 in alr the revenue records i.e. Pahanies etc.. After conducting survey and panchananla, respondents No'2 and 3 irstead of issuing order for rectifying tht: crericar error, issued Memo dated 2g.o1.2oog stating that the error cannot be treated as clerical and it is not a lit case to entertain ur,der- section g7 of the Act, 1317 F, since it is fired after rapse of fiftyyears. Assairing the same' petitioners preferred an appeal before the respondent No.l, who passecr the impugned order con,rming the Memo dated 28.Ot.2008.

¶43

6' The learned Senior cou.ser for the petitioners h,as drawn the attention of this court to the circurar dated 15.10. lgg4issued by the commissioner, Surve5r and Settlement in Lancr Records, Hyderabad, and would subrnit that in the said circular, it is clarified that there is no limit for entertaining clericar errors and the Distr.ict Revenue officer is competent enough to entertain correction of crr:ricar errors. The respondents, instead of making rectification of cleric:al errors in the revenue .ecords, have erroneousry rejected for rectificari.n.

¶44

k:*

¶45

!wSK, J W.P. !ro.3l3oS of^2OlO

¶46

5

¶47

On the other hand,^{the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader} appearing for the^{respondents has reiterated the contents of the} impugned order and^{substantiatedtheir stand'}

¶48

The main grievance^{of the petitionersis that though the land in} Sy.No.151 of lbrahimpabh^{village GokondaMandal, Hyderabad, is} physically available to an^{extent of Acs.2.10 guntas whichis in their} occupation from^{decades, however, in the revenperecordsitis} recorded as Ac.1.19^{guntas. It is their furthercase that even after} conducting survey^{and comingto know the said variation in the extent} of the subject land,^{as being clerical error' the respondents have} dismissed the application^{of the petitioners'father for consideringthe} clerical error on^{the ground of delayunder Section87 of the A'P' (TA)} Survey and Land^Records.

¶49

9 For better appreciation,^{section87 of the Act is extracted for} reference:

¶50

"87..Settlement^{Oflicerto correct clerical and} other errors admitted^{by allparties and} application for^{correction of name to be made} within two Years:-

¶51

' [The^{Director of Settlements and on making} over the settlement^{records to the Collector,} the Collector^{may,at any time, correct or causeto} be corrected any^{clericalerror or errors admitted} by the pafiy concerned.l

¶52

The aforesaid officer^{shall hearall} applications^{made within two years after the} / I

¶53

6

¶54

r{vsl(. J lV-P. No-3I3O5 of2OtO

¶55

rntroduction of or any wrons .j[ :T'ffi:r::",:;,::,.T" register referred satisned about J:';::j;:s;ction and ir been made through negligence, Urr; l. ffi"H shall correct the sarle, notwithstanding that the party concerrred does not admit the error. but no such application shall be entertained ajter two years, unless ree said ornce. r,. :":Jl j::.^{js shown to the} eor is proved it shafl not be ;*T:;::H obtaining the sanction of the [GovernmcntJ.,,

¶56

l0' In the instant case, the apprication was made by the father of the petitioners in the year 2OO3 to the Mandal Revenue Officer to dema-rcate the extent of land in their possession and fix the boundaries' After conducting survey, petitionefs, f;rther was orary informed that the rand ava,abre in sy.No.151 is Acs.iZ.o2guntas and odd but as per the pahani a,d wasoor Baki, it is recorded as Ac.1.1g guntas on the said survey number. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue officer had issued Memo dated 21.05.2004 stating as under.

¶57

,,Sri Man Rama Kishtaiah s/o' Yellaiah is hereby r.ra**'' rand in syNo,:l :1ffiH_:.T,ffi:,::,.J reported by the MandaI Surveyor that the total extent of the land in Sy.No.f Si o ''^Ibrahim Bag,h v,rage is not tallied with the ,..u. recorded in *re tippan available in this office.

¶58

He is therefore directed to co mp e ten t au th ori ty for demar.cation ::ffi ":.:1=

¶59

\

¶60

!wSr(, J W-P- No-3l3OS of 2OlO

¶61

7

¶62

/

¶63

1 1. In view of the above, the petitioners' made applications on 25.O5.2OO4 and 29.05.2004 before the respondents No.2 and 3^{with a} request to rectify the actual extent of Acs.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.151ⁱⁿ all the revenue records. After conducting survey, the^{Deput5rDirector,} Inspector of Survey, issued Memo dated 28.O1.2OO8, which reads^as under.

¶64

"With reference to the letter 2"a cited, the applicant Sri Mangali Rama Kistaiah is hereby informed that the permission sought for correction of area in respect of Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh village, Golconda Mandal, is hereby rejected due to the following reasons.

¶65

I

¶66

¶67

The error cannot be treated as clerical error due to the reason that the old records of^Wasool Baqi also shows the extent of Survey Number is Ac.1.19 Gts including Potekharab.

¶68

It is not a fit case to be entertained under^the provision of 87 of A.P.(T.A.) L.R. Act. 1317F since it is belated claim made after a lapse of 50^years, the calculations of the difference of area shows more than admissible limit.

¶69

3

¶70

The orders of the Division Bench of the Honble High Court of A.P. in case of Khairuddin Ali Vs. State of A.P. 1999(21 ALD 496 (DB) held that Section 87 permits the authorities completely only to correct clerical error or error admitted by the party concerned and also further empowers them to hear the applications made within two^years after introduction of settlement of correction of any wrong entry of Pattadar's name in the register

/ /

8

r... ,*"."Ylt"'rroro

prepar-ed by the error. survey officer and con:ect such

¶75

As such the rr be ]quest of the applicant carurot considered.,

¶76

Aggrieved by the Memo dated 2g.Ol.2oEg,tht_. petitioners,father preferred an appeal on 1g.o 2-2,*gbefore the res pondent No.I and the appeat was dismissed on oz.os.2n;;;. '<vrv vrqe ur'No'F.2/7884/ 2oos, whiclr reads as under

¶77

,,I invite a ttention to the reference l" cited and to inform the permiss:' correction o, ,"' in respect J":r;::::: Ibrahimbagt, uilr." :: Golconda Mar rejccted due to th.'gt : folrowing."."orrJo'^{is hr:rebY}

¶78

Thc error can err.r due,. * :T*:^{;::';: H'::.Ll.ri} "f^;;:;;,:t ;T ffx incruding "r;;:Tt 2. It is not a fit unde*he ;TJ",,T, ,x r"ed ,:T.;.J :L': made after a'"rj:t lt:11:l;: carcurarions of then admi""iur.trllidifference^{of area shows} mc,re

¶79

The orders r clivision bench of Honbre High courr "r o o'ljlt l.:;,1 ;i^{;,i _:Ji#,T,:.;#, J.":;l} competent only to correct clerical ...or"nonties ;::",il":j: :;#Tl ;.:1: two years after introduction of o.nr^]l:^l wrons entry j: ::,II::,".,,:"T":: op an,' - \ "^rrqrfi€ lJl the register

¶80

,

¶81

t{vsK, J W.P. No.313O5 of 2O1O

9

/

/n

/

prepared by the survey officer and correct such error.

¶87

This is for information."

¶88

Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Resu Mahender Reddy appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the material made available on the record.

¶89

On a perusal of the Memo dated 21.O5.2OO4, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, which referred the Mandal Surveyor report dated 17.O5.2OO4, it was informed to the applicant that during the demarcation of land in Sy.No.l5i of Ibrahim Bagh village it is reported by the Mandal Surveyor that the total extent of the land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh village has not tallied with the area recorded in the tippon available in the office. It is to be noted here that there is no specific finding as to what extent of area of land is not tallying. The respondents No.2 and 3 did not correct the extent of land as per the Revenue records with that even after verifying the extent of land as per ground position.

¶90

As per the communication filed in the writ material papers, the petitioner by letter dated 29.O5.2OO4 by referring the File No.A3/338104 dated 25.O5.2OO4 connected application document, informed the respondent No.3, that the land in Kabja is to counterbalanced as per tippon and that there is a difference of Ac.O.30 gts., to the extent of Revenue records and Tippon and requested to

¶91

,

¶92

IO IYVSK. J trr.P. No.3l3OS of2OlO

¶93

correct the measurements in rand records as per Tippon. Thereafter, on 2g.Og.2OO4, the Inspector of Survey, Hyderabad, Office of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, conductecl sun,ey in sy'No'1s1, Ibrahim Bagh v,lage and as per panchanama dated 28.08.2024, recorded that as per Sethwar the lan,l is admeasuring Ac.1.19 gts., and as per Wasool Baqui Register rec,orded as Ac.l.19 gts'' and as per the pass Book and pahani Records recorded as As'1'19 gts', and as per Tippon on the ground it was found Acs.2.o2 gts' The said panchanama has been signed by the responde.t No.3. Thereafter, the Collector, Hyderabad, vide lette r No.B2/rrfO1r,Or, dated og.ro-2007 addressed to the respondent No.3 r.vh,e referring to earlier correspondence informed that the permission sought for correction of area in respect of sy.No.151 0f Ibrah,imbagh vilrage, Golconda Mancial was rejected with the folrowing reasons:

¶94

1' The error cannot be treated as clerical error due to the reason that the ord records of wasoor Baqui also shows the of Sy.no. is Ac.1.9 gts including photktrarab.

¶95

.) ,1".,"", z' rr rs not a fit case to be entertained under the provision of g7 of A'p' (T.A) LR Act 13 17 F since it is belatr:d claim made

¶96

area shows more after a lapse of 50 then admissible years the calculations limit. of tfte difference ----v^vrruL of

¶97

3' The orders of the division bench of Honble High court of A'p' in case of Khairuddin Ati v. state of A.p. lggg (2) ALD 496 (DB) held that Section gZ permit the authorities competent o'ry to correct clericar error or erro.r admitted by the partlr concerned and also further empov/ers them to hear the applications made within two ).ears after introduction of settlement of correction of an5, wrong entry

¶98

ll

¶99

IwSK, J W.P. l[o.3l3o5 of 2OlO

¶100

1

¶101

/

¶102

of pattadars name in the register prepared by the survey officer and correct such error.

¶103

In the material filed along with the affidavit, a copy of the Circular issued by the office of the Commissioner Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, dated 15.10.1994, is filed. The said Circular refers to the rectification of settlement errors - scope and applicability of Section 87 of A.P. (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F variations. In the said circular, clarifications were issued and one of the relevant clarilications refers to the time limit wherein.it is clarilied that there is no time limit for entertaining clerical errors, and District Revenue Officer is competent to entertain clerical errors. The time limit is prescribed only for errors other then clerical errors. For better appreciation, the said clarification is extracted hereunder:

¶104

"Clarification:-^{There is no time limit for} entertaining clerical errors, and District Revenue Officer is competent to entertain clerical errors. The time limit is prescribed only for errors other then clerical errors. For rectification of errors other then clerical errors condonation of delay is required, for which Dist. Revenue Officer alone is competent. However the Dist. Revenue Officer is not competent to carr5rout correction other than clerical errors without the approval of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records."

¶105

The respondent No.2 vide Memo Lr.No.A3/338/2OO4, dated

¶106

28.01 .2OO8 held that the error cannot be treated as clerical error due to the reason that the old records of Wasool Baqi also shows the

¶107

/ ,

¶108

td

¶109

t2 llvslt, J W.P. Itto.3lCOS of 2OlO

¶110

extent of survey number is Ac.1.19 gts including F,otekharab and that it is not a fit case to be entertained under t,.e prc,vision of g7 0f A.p. (T'A') L'R' Act 1317F since a berated claim w.S ,,,1de after a lapse of 50 years and that the calcurations of the difference of area shows more than admissible rimit ancl also referred to the orders of the Division Bench of this court in case of Khairuddin Ari vs. State of A.p. 19gg (2) ALD 496 (DB), wherein it is held that section g7 permits the authorities completely only to correct crericar errbr or error admitted by the party concerned and also further empowers them to hear the applications made rvithin two years after introduction of settrement of correction of any w,rong entry of pattadar,s name in the register prepared by the Survey Officer and correct such error. Considering the said aspects, the request of the applicant was not considered.

¶111

18' It is further submitted that the respondents No.2 and 3 fa,ed to consider the apprications made immediately aftr:r noticing the variations with regard to ground positions and in the pahanies, faisal patti etc., to the extents in the tippons, pahanies, Wasool baki as clerical error and whereby such mistakes/errors can be examined and rectified as per the circular dated i5.10. 1gg4 :issued by the commissioner' Survey and Settrement, Land Records o,f Hydera bad.

¶112

19' Further, on a perusar of the r{emo dated 2s.or.2oog,issued by the Deput5r Director, Inspector of Survey, there is no reference to the Panchanama dated 2g.og.2004. The said fact was not addressed by the respondent No. r in its counter. Further, on a perusar of the retter

¶113

t.. :

¶114

E

¶115

I{VSK, J W.P- No.3l3O5 of 2OlO

¶116

l3

¶117

/

¶118

dated 26.04.2OO5 addressed by the respondent No.3 to the Commissioner of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, proposal was sent seeking clarification regarding nature of the error i.e. whether it is clerical or not. In the letter dated 23.O9.2OO5, communicated by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 it is submitted that the Survey Settlement records i.e. Uttara Book and Pucca Book of Sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh village has been verified with reference to tippon. The Uttara book of Sy.No..151 in which t8 waslas were shown as Shamil Wasala and 18 was taken as wazal. But actually 19 waslas have to be taken into shamil (plus) waslas. The missed waslas in pucca book was shown in red ink in the uttara sheet. Thus as per calculation, the area is coming to Ac.2.O2 gts. The site has been inspected by the Inspector of Survey of the office on 28.O8.2OO4 after issuing notices to the adjoining pattedars after demarcation of Sy.No.151 and with the help of tippon, the Inspector of Survey has conducted spot panchanama. The particulars of Survey Settlement records recorded as follows:

¶119

Area as per Sethwar : Ac.1.19 gts.,

¶120

Area as per Wasool Baqui : Ac.1.19 gts., 3. Area as per Wasool Baqui & PPB : Ac.1.19 gts., 4. Area arrived as per Tippon : Ac.2.O2 gts., 5. Possession on ground : Ac.2.02 gts.,

¶121

From the above records, the respondent No.3 opined that the case requires rectification of area in Sethwar and Wasool Baqui as per tippon and possession as a clerical error. Since the Ibrahim Bagh

¶122

/

¶123

Iii

¶124

t4 [vsrq J W.P. No.3t3OS of 2OtO $\

¶125

Village is not covered under detaired Town s,rvey and hence the old survey records which are prepared under A.p. L.R. (T) Act 1317 Fasri are in force. Therefore, Section gz of the L.R. (,r.) Act r3rr Fasli is applicabre in this case for correction of area. As per section g7, the collector/Joint collector is competent to order correction of clerical error or errors admitted by parties received with in a period of (2) years after the survey and settrement records are made over to the District Administration. Thereafter proposals are -o be submitted to the commissioner of Settlements, survey and L.nd Records, A.p. Hyderabad (commissioner ss & LRS) for acco.t-ding permission. The present case is received beyond (2) years r.rom the date of announcement, and as per the circular instructions of the commissioner of settrement, S&LRs A.p. Hyderabad communicated in F1/4392/94 (D.os) dated ls.r0. rgg4 there is no time rimit for entertaining crericar error and DRo / Joint coilector is competent to entertain petition under clerical error and forwarcrecr the attested copies of the records of wasool Baqui, Sethwar, area calculation as per uthra Book, carcuration book, area as per sethrvar and copy of Mogini book' It is further stated that the village vr'as not covered under town survey and Telangana Survey Records are in force in Ibrahimbagh virage. The error is a carculation erro.- which can be classified as crerical error and the DRo, Hyderabad w,as requested to accord permission to carryout the correction in area in the Sethwar and wasoor Baqui of Sy.No.151 of lbrahim Bagh vi,age as crerical error and the DRo is competent to order correction in survey records

¶126

I'IvsK,J W.P. No.313OS of 2OlO

¶127

l5

¶128

of under Section 87^{of TALR Act 1317 Fasli. It is observedthat the} said facts and communications^{were not dealt in the counter and also} in the impugned order.

¶129

It is pertinent to^{note the fact that the respondent No.3 has} earli6r conducted^{Panchanamaand recordedthat as per Tipon on the} ground found area was Acs.2.02^{gts. The said fact was not considered} by the respondent No.3^{in his order dated28.OL.2OO.Sand also by the} respondent No.1,^{who failed to note the finding in the Panchanamaof} the respondent^{No.3. In the impugned order dated 07.O9.2010passed} by the respondent^{No.1whereinthe appeal filed by the petitionerswas} dismissed by confirming^{the order passedby the respondent No.3 vide} Memo dated 28.01.2OO8^{with verysame reasons.}

¶130

That apart, the^{petitionersin the writ affidavit at paraNo-S} submitted that the father^{of the petitioners made applicationson} 25.05.2004 and,29.O5.2OO4^{beforethe respondents No.2 and 3 with a} request to rectify the actual^{extent of Acs.2.lO gts., in Sy.No.151} which is in their^{physicalpossessionin all revenuerecords' Upon} receipt of applications,^{the respondents No-2 and 3 conducted survey} and fixed the boundaries^{ol Sy.No.151 white conducting panchanama} on 28.08.2OO4.^{The surveyor measuredthe land which is in physical} possession recording the extent^{of Sy.No.151as Acs.2.O2 gts', as per} tippon.

¶131

l6 IrIvSK, J W.P. l{o.3l3OS of 2OlO

¶132

It is also pertinent to ,ote here that the respondents did not consider the communications of the respondc nts No.3 to the respondent No.2 letter clated 23.09.2025 and the I)anchanama dated 28-o8.2oo4 and circular dated 1s.1o. lgg4 in proper perspective.

¶133

24- In that 'iew of the matter, this court deem:; it appropriate to remit the matter to the respondent No.l for corLsidering the case afresh by taking into consideration the dntire records and communications pertaining to the Sy.No.l5l of Ibrahimbagh village with respcct to correction of error for extent of lar-rd in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh by correlating the extent of the land as per ground pcsition.

¶134

Accordingly, the impugned order dated oz.ott.2o1O passed by the respondent No. t is set asicle with a direction to the respondent No' 1 to consider the case of the petitioners taking into consideration the various communications among the respondent.s No.2 and 3, correlating with panchanama dated 28.O8.2OO4 arLd entire records pertaining to the Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh village with respect to correction of error with respect to the extent of lanci in sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh, and pass appropriate orders afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of Three (o3) months from the dzrte of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶135

l7

¶136

lrvsx, J W.P. !to.313OS of 2oto

¶137

/

¶138

I

¶139

Since there is discrcpancy in the records and the extent on ground position, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion either on the title or on the possession of the petitioners on the subject property

¶140