TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD versus AZAMUNNISA BEGUM (DIED) THRU. LRS. & ORS. on 1 May 2018

[2018] 4 S.C.R. 797

TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD

v.

AZAMUNNISA BEGUM (DIED) THRU. LRS. & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 4632-4638 of 2018)

MAY 01, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition:

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317Fasli: s. 87 – Settlement Officer to correct clerical and other errorsadmitted by all parties – Acquisition of thousand acres of landcovering few dozen survey numbers by the State Housing Board forthe housing scheme – Entire land in survey no. 1009 acquired bythe Housing Board as also possession taken – Respondent-landowner’s case that 11 acres and odd had not been acquired –However, revenue authorities case that the entire area of SurveyNo. 1009 was actually 687.03 acres and as a result 20.18 acreshad not been acquired whereas records originally indicated thatSurvey No. 1009 consists of 666.25 acres – Challenge to – Held:There was no clerical error in the measurement of survey No. 1009for all intents and purposes – Entire land in Survey No. 1009 wasacquired for a Housing Scheme – No parcel of land in SurveyNo.1009 was left out or not acquired – Compensation was paid foracquisition of the entire Survey No.1009 – Division Bench of theHigh Court erred in concluding that 20.18 acres of land in SurveyNo. 1009 had not been acquired – Respondent’s claim u/s. 87 aftera period of 25 years was hopelessly delayed for which there is noexplanation – Respondents ought to have been vigilant in pursuingtheir claim, assuming the claim was legitimate – Furthermore, thirdparty rights have been created in the meanwhile under the HousingScheme and there is no way to put the clock back – Housing Boardwas directly and primarily affected by the claim made by therespondents u/s. 87 and thus, had the locus standi to proceed beforethe Commissioner (Appeals), the High Court and this Court –Judgment passed by the Division Bench is set aside.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

798SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AAllowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The entire Survey No. 1009 was acquired by theAPHB for a Housing Scheme. No parcel of land in Survey No.1009was left out or not acquired. Compensation was paid for acquisitionof the entire Survey No.1009. The Division Bench of the HighBCourt erred in concluding that 20.18 acres of land in SurveyNo.1009 had not been acquired. It is too simplistic on the part ofthe respondents to contend that land in excess of 661.04 acres inSurvey No.1009 was not acquired. This is certainly not so andthe entire Survey No.1009 was acquired. The claim made by therespondents under Section 87 of the Act was hopelessly delayedCfor which there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming. Sincethird party rights have been created in the meanwhile under theHousing Scheme of the APHB and there is no way to put theclock back. The respondents ought to have been vigilant inpursuing their claim, assuming the claim was legitimate, but sinceDthey were not vigilant enough, they must suffer the consequencesof their inaction. The proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh LandReforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 were ofsome consequence but since the APHB has not relied upon theproceedings under the said Act and the counsel has onlymentioned it in passing, there is no intention to base the decisionEon the declaration made by the respondents under the said Act.The APHB was directly and primarily affected by the claim madeby the respondents under Section 87 of the Act and therefore,had the locus standi to proceed before the Commissioner(Appeals), the High Court and this Court. The judgment and orderFpassed by the Division Bench is set aside. [Paras 65-70] [824-B-H; 825-A]

2.1 The Division Bench of the High Court seriously erredin setting aside the order of the Single Judge.The APHB hadacquired, in terms of the Award dated 10[th] June, 1968 a coupleof thousand acres of land covering a few dozen survey numbers.GThe entire land was acquired and in view of the large area ofacquisition even if there was some error in describing the area ofa particular survey number, that would be inconsequential giventhe overall acquisition and its purpose for a Housing Schemeunder Section 22A of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act.HThe entire land in Survey No.1009 was acquired by the APHB.

There cannot be any doubt in this regard, particularly since theAPHB also took possession of the entire Survey No.1009. [Para41] [816-C-E]

2.2 While it is correct that the respondents did submit intheir claim petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 that 11 acres and odd had not been acquired, there wasabsolutely no reference to any survey number in which this 11acres and odd was located. There was no clear identification ofthe land, no boundaries were mentioned nor was the land ear-marked in any manner and in fact even the exact measurementwas not mentioned. The respondents were taking a potshot inthe dark to somehow or the other retain possession of some ofthe acquired land. [Para 42] [816-E-G]

2.3 If the respondents were convinced that 11 acres andodd had not been acquired by the APHB in 1968 it is notunderstandable why no follow up action taken by them. They hadan option, perhaps, of proceeding against the APHB for being inwrongful possession of 11 acres and odd owned by therespondents and they certainly had the option of moving anapplication under Section 87. The respondents took neither ofthese steps on an urgent basis or any other step that might havebeen available to them in law. [Para 43] [816-G-H; 817-A-B]

2.4 All that the respondents did was to wait for another 25years and then move an application under Section 87 of the Actsometime in 1993. There was no change in the factual situationbetween 1968 and 1993 except construction having been madeby the APHB in pursuance of its Housing Scheme. Therespondents have given absolutely no explanation for filing anapplication under Section 87 of the Act after such an enormouslapse of time. What has been submitted is that there is no timelimit for correcting a clerical error and that being so, therespondents cannot be non-suited on the ground of delay andlaches, cannot be accepted. It is accepted with the APHB that anaccurate picture of the area in terms of measurement of land inSurvey No.1009 cannot be fully relied upon after several decadesand after construction having been made. The records hadoriginally indicated that Survey No.1009 consists of 666.25 acres A

BC

DE

FG

H

Aand it must be proceed on that basis rather than assume thecorrectness of a measurement carried out after several decades.[Paras 44, 45] [817-B-E]

2.5 That the unexplained delay in measurement of the areacannot be relied upon is also supported by the fact that even theBrevenue authorities were not quite sure about the exact area ofSurvey No.1009. According to the respondents, 11.10 acres hadnot been acquired but according to the revenue authorities theentire area of Survey No.1009 was actually 687.03 acres with theresult that 20.18 had not been acquired. In view of thisdiscrepancy, the surveys conducted post the notification underCSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be relied upon. Ithas come on record that IDL was also in possession of someparts of Survey No.1009. Thus, it must be accepted that the factthat the entire Survey No.1009 was acquired by the APHB andpossession taken, regardless of its actual measurement and the Dalleged non-acquisition of 11.10 acres is nothing but a red herring.Consequently, the question of correcting a ‘clerical error’ withreference to Section 87 of the Act does not arise. [Para 46][817-E-H]

2.6 It is not clear what the clerical error was. If the clericalerror was that the area of Survey No.1009 was not 661.04 acresEor 666.25 acres but actually 687.03 acres then the contention isself-defeating. This is because the area of Survey No.1009 wouldthen have to be read as 687.03 for all purposes and not 661.04acres. The consequence of this correction would be that theacquisition was of 687.03 acres and not of 661.04 acres. ThatFapart, the correction of the alleged clerical error does not giverise to the argument that only 661.04 acres was acquired out of687.03 acres. If the correction gives rise to an argument orcontention, then it ceases to be the correction of a clerical errorbut is really the correction of a substantive error, which does notcome within the purview of Section 87 of the Act. [Paras 47-48]G[818-B-D]

2.7 The Circular dated 15[th] October, 1994 clarifies a clerical error. One clarification is to the effect that a clerical error is wherethe area is calculated wrongly though measurement on the groundand the records support the correct area. This clause is soughtHto be relied upon by the respondents. It must be appreciated in this case that there is no question of a calculation error since noarithmetical error was committed as understood by this Court.The area of Survey No.1009 was measured and it was found to be666.25 acres (including the area acquired for Manjeera WaterWorks Department). The survey by the Measuring CircleInspector, the check by the G.D. Inspector and approved by theLand Record Assistant clearly indicate this. This was sought tobe ‘corrected’ by the respondents by claiming that the area ofSurvey No.1009 was much more. A calculation error would be, ina situation such as the present, an error that would appear on theface of the document or the revenue records, as the case may be.If there is a need to carry out a survey and a re-survey, the errorcannot by any means, be described as a clerical error. [Para 52][819-E-H; 820-A]

2.8 What makes the situation worse insofar as therespondents are concerned is that according to them the errorwas to the extent of 11.10 acres but on a survey having beenconducted, the error was said to be to an extent of 20.18 acres.Surely, such a discrepancy cannot be described as an accidentalslip or a clerical mistake or a calculation error. It can only bedescribed as a major error which ought to have been rectified atthe appropriate time in 1968 when the Award was passed or soonthereafter. To notice and make much ado about such an errorafter at least 25 years cannot be understood as the correction ofa clerical error. [Para 53] [819-B-C]

2.9. The view expressed in the Circular dated 15[th] October,1994 particularly clause 5(d) referred to and relied upon by therespondents does not come within the four corners of theunderstanding of the expression clerical error by this Court if itinvolves a survey and a re-survey as in this case. Therefore, noreliance can be placed upon the contemporaneous expositionmade by the revenue authorities in the Circular dated 15[th]October, 1994. Thus, there was no clerical error in themeasurement of Survey No.1009 for all intents and purposes andthat in any event, the entire land in Survey No.1009 was acquiredfor the Housing Scheme of the APHB. [Paras 56-57] [821-C-D]

2.9 The delay by the respondents in making a claim underSection 87 of the Act is not satisfactory. It was submitted that AB

C

D

E

FG

H

Asince there is no time limit specified for filing a claim petition,they could have made a claim at any point of time, particularly forcorrecting a clerical error. It is now well settled that where notime-limit is specified, whatever is required to be done shouldbe within a reasonable period. Insofar as the facts of the presentcase are concerned, the claim made under Section 87 of the ActBwas after a period of at least 25 years. This can hardly be describedas a reasonable period. There is no explanation for the inordinatedelay and to make matters worse, third party interests have beencreated through a Housing Scheme developed on the land indispute or in any event on the surrounding land. After a furtherClapse of 25 years it is not possible to put the clock back, even ifthere is any reason to do so, which reason, cannot even bevisualised in this case. [Paras 58, 59,62] [821-E-F; 823-A-B]

2.10 A tract of land measuring 11.10 acres out of SurveyNo.1009 was sought to be taken away from the APHB which hadDannounced a Housing Scheme under Section 22A of the AndhraPradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 and third party rights had alsobeen created in this regard. The primary responsibility ofprotecting the interests of the beneficiaries of the HousingScheme was that of the APHB and surely it cannot be said under these circumstances that the APHB had no locus standi toEparticipate in the proceedings. In fact, even the revenueauthorities recognised the locus of the APHB in the order dated15[th] September, 1997. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlementsand Land Records, Hyderabad directed the District RevenueOfficer to take action in terms of the Circular of 15[th] October,F1994 but before passing any orders under Section 87 of the Act,it was directed that the APHB should be heard. [Para 63][823-D-F]

2.11 The revenue authorities had completely misdirectedin law in reopening a factual issue that had been settled way backin 1968 if not earlier and there was no occasion for reopeningGthat factual issue after a lapse of at least 25 years. That being theposition, it cannot be said that the courts are precluded frominterfering in a matter of determination of facts when theauthorities have completely misdirected themselves in law andexercised jurisdiction which did not vest in them. [Para 64] [823-HG-H; 823-A-B]

TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD v. AZAMUNNISA BEGUM(DIED) THRU. LRS.& ORS.

M/s Tata Consulting Engineers v. Workmen 1980 (Supp.)SCC 627 : 1981 SCR 166; Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal.(1981) 1 SCC 500 : [1981] 2 SCR 485; MasterConstruction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1966SC 1047 : 1966 SCR 99; Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi(Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Gujarat (2016) 4 SCC 531 :[2016] 1 SCR 283; K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer,Ernakulum and Another AIR 1981 SC 1922 : [1982]1 SCR 629; Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. v. Delhi StockExchange Association Ltd. AIR 1979 SC 1049 : [1979]3 SCR 373; Collector v. P. Mangamma (2003) 4 SCC488 : [2003] 2 SCR 430; Joint Collector Ranga ReddyDistrict v. D. NarsingRao (2015) 3 SCC 695 : [2015] 1SCR 437; Basanti Prasad v. Chairman, Bihar SchoolExamination Board (2009) 6 SCC 791: [2009] 9 SCR367 – referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4632-4638 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2009 as amended on11.03.2010 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad inWAMP No.2922/2009, WA Nos.1311 and 1781 of 2005, WA No.257/2009, WAMP No.2475/2008 in WA No.1311/2005 and WAMP No.1156/2009 in WA No.1311/2005 and WAMP No.2476/2008 in WA No.1781/2005 respectively.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AP.S. Narsimha, ASG, Mukul Rohatgi, V. Giri, K. Ramamoorthy,Dushyant Dave, Koke Raghave Rao, Debol Banerjee, Sr. Advs., T.V.Ratnam, Dr. Rajaram Punna, M. Sowri Dev, Apoorv Sarvaria, NikhilRohatgi, Shashank Khurana, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. BinaMadhavan, Piyush Dwivedi, Shreyasi Kunwar, Krishna BushanChowdary (for M/s Lawyer’s Knit & Co.), K.L. Sastry, R.V.BKameshwaran, Shivpati B. Pandey, S.K. Verma, Atul Kumar, AnangaBhattacharyya, Mukund P. Unny, Rohit Rao N., K. Subba Rao, K.Maruthi Rao, K. Radha, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, M.V. Rama, HarshaPeechara, Mrs. Sudha Gupta, , Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Aarif Ali Khan,Rizwan Ahmad Durrani, Mujahid Ahmad, D.S. Khan, D. RamakrishnaCReddy, Ms. Vidyottma, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, G.V.R. Choudary, K.Shivraj Choudhuri, A. Chandra Sekhar, Ms. Ayushi Goel, V.N.Raghupathy, Gaurav Agarwal, Ms. Tanya Shree, Ejaz Maqbool, KunwarAditya Singh, Nageswar Rao, I.V. Kasyap, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, D.Mahesh Babu, Ms. Suchitra, T.V. Bhasker Reddy, B. Rama KrishnaRao, Sumit Kumar, Rajiv Singh, Ishaan George, C.R. Mishra, PranabDKumar Mullick, Soma Mullick, Sebat Kumar Deuria, Trideep Pais,Devashish Chauhan, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J. Leave granted.E

1. The question for our consideration relates to the interpretationof Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land RevenueAct, 1317 Fasli and the meaning of the expression ‘clerical error’. Thefurther question is whether a ‘clerical error’ can be corrected “at anytime” or only within a reasonable time.

F

2. In our opinion, the correction sought to be made by therespondents is not a ‘clerical error’ and so the further question reallydoes not arise. However, the expression “at any time’ cannot beinterpreted to stretch over a period of 25 years, as in the present case.

Land Acquisition ProceedingsGth

th3. On 24 May, 1963 a notification was issued under the provisionsof Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Land AcquisitionAct). The entire acquisition was of a few thousand acres comprising ofdozens of survey numbers. Amongst others, the acquisition includedsurvey nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065 comprising of 1110.07 acres in Kukatpally H

Village, Balanagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District of Andhra Pradesh. The entire acquisition was for the purpose of a Housing Scheme of theAndhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) framed under Section 22-Aof the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956.

4. As is evident, the area was extremely large but it is recorded inparagraph 4 of the Land Acquisition Award that:

“The lands under acquisition were got surveyed by the MeasuringCircle Inspector of this office and were got checked by the G.D.Inspector of Hyderabad District, and areas of the lands underAcquisition were approved by the Land Record Assistant. TheAreas as approved after survey and check are adopted in thisAward.”

5. As far as Survey No. 1009 is concerned an area of 661.04acres was sought to be acquired. The notification does not indicate thatonly a part of Survey No. 1009 was sought to be acquired. There wasno indication that 661.04 acres of land is only a part of the entire extentof Survey No.1009. In fact, as suggested in the Award, the entire SurveyNo. 1009 along with the entire survey nos. 1043 to 1065 (along withseveral dozen other survey numbers) were sought to be acquired by thesaid notification.

6. In paragraph 29 (b) of the Land Acquisition Award it is furtherstated:

6. In paragraph 29 (b) of the Land Acquisition Award it is furtherstated:

“The Special Deputy Collector Patancheru has informedvide his Lr. No.B1/341/67 dated 6.8.67 that he has acquired5 acres 21 guntas out of survey number 1009 measuring666.25 acres of Kukatpally village. The area tallies on thespot hence an area 5 acres 21 guntas is deleted from thearea of survey no.1009 of Kukatpally and award is beingpassed for the balance area of 661.64 acres out of surveynumber 1009.”

7. At this stage, we may mention that an area of 5.21 acres inSurvey No. 1009 was earlier acquired for the Manjeera Water WorksDepartment and hence 661.04 acres was sought to be acquired by thesaid notification.

8. The acquisition proceedings concluded without any objectionhaving been raised by the respondents who were admittedly owners of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe land. An Award was passed by the Special Deputy Collector, LandAcquisition, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Hyderabad on 10[th] June,1968 and Survey No. 1009 was described in the Award as “dry lands fullof rocks unfit for cultivation and no cultivation is being done.”

th9. On 24 June, 1968 the APHB took possession of all the acquiredBlands including entire survey nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065.

10. Dissatisfied with the award of compensation, the respondentsfiled a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In theclaim petition it was stated that survey nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065comprise of 1121.17 acres. However, compensation was awarded onlyCfor 1104.26 acres (5.21 acres relating to Manjeera Water WorksDepartment was not included in this calculation). Accordingly, it wasstated that “11 acres and odd, they being the property of the claimant, itis not acquired and they remain to be the property of the claimant.” It issignificant to note that the 11 acres and odd which was sought to beexcluded from the acquisition proceedings by the respondents was notDspecified or identified inasmuch as the survey number of this un-acquiredarea was not stated or earmarked by the claimants. It is much later thatthe respondents came to the conclusion that the allegedly un-acquired11 acres and odd was a part of Survey No. 1009.

11. Be that as it may, the compensation was enhanced andEultimately, settled by this Court sometime in 1992. We are not concernedwith the details of the compensation proceedings any further but havementioned it only for the purpose of indicating that:

i) The entire area of survey nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065 wasacquired. The acquisition consisted of huge areas andFphysical measurements were carried out, surveyed,checked and approved as per the revenue records.

ii) Possession of the entire land was taken by the APHB for aHousing Scheme.

iii) Although the respondents made a submission that 11 acresGand odd was not acquired, this area was not identified orspecified as being a part of any particular survey number oreven earmarked.

Proceedings relating to Section 87 of the A.P. (TelanganaArea) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F.H

th12. On 7 December, 1993 the respondents moved an applicationunder the provisions of Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (TelanganaArea) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short the Act). In the application,it was stated that as per the revenue record pertaining to Survey No.1009 the land area is actually 672.14 acres and it incorrectly shows thearea less by 11.10 acres. It was stated in the application that this areaof 11.10 acres was in possession of the respondents. It is for the firsttime in 1993 that 11.10 acres was attributed to Survey No. 1009. Section87 of the Act reads as follows:- “Settlement Officer to correct clerical and other errorsadmitted by all parties and application for correction of nameto be made within two years:

The Director of Settlements and on making over the settlementrecords to the Collector, the Collector may, at any time, correct orcause to be corrected any clerical error or errors admitted by theparty concerned.

The aforesaid officer shall hear all applications made within twoyears after the introduction of the settlement, for the correctionof any wrong entry of a pattadar’s name in the register referredto in the preceding section and if satisfied about the error whethersuch error has been made through negligence, fraud, or collusionshall correct the same, notwithstanding that the party concerneddoes not admit the error but no such application shall be entertainedafter two years, unless reasonable cause is shown to the saidofficer for the delay, and in such cases if any error is proved itshall not be corrected without obtaining the sanction of theGovernment.”

13. Acting on the application, the District Collector requested theAssistant Director, Survey and Land Records for a survey of SurveyNo. 1009 and to fix the boundaries. The Assistant Director issued noticethto the APHB on 7 July, 1994 for the purposes of carrying out the surveybut according to the APHB the notice was not received. In our opinion,the non-receipt of the notice is hardly of any relevance.

th

14. In any event, the Assistant Director submitted a Report on 5August, 1994 to the District Collector. In his Report, it was concludedthat the area of Survey No. 1009 was actually 687.03 acres. Thiscomprised of 661.04 acres (subject matter of consideration before us)and 5.21 acres earlier acquired for Manjeera Water Works Department.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ATherefore, according to the Assistant Director there was an excess of20.18 acres that had not been acquired. It was also noted that IDL wasin possession of some extent of Survey No. 1009. No specification ordetails were provided of the area and location of the land in possessionof IDL.

B15. It is also significant to note that while the respondents hadbeen contending that there was an excess of 11.10 acres that had notbeen acquired, the Assistant Director came to the conclusion that 20.18acres had not been acquired.

16. At this stage, we may take a slight diversion and refer to aCCircular dated 15[th] October, 1994 issued by the Commissioner of Survey,Settlements and Land Records. This Circular concerns itself with Section87 of the Act it seeks to explain a ‘clerical error’ that could be rectified.

th17. The relevant portions of the Circular dated 15 October, 1994are paragraphs 4 and 5 and they read as follows:-D“Clarification: There is no time limit for entertaining clerical errors,and District: Revenue Officer is competent to entertain clericalerrors. The time limit is prescribed only for errors other than clericalerrors. For rectification of errors other than clerical errorscondonation of delay is required, for which District: RevenueEOfficer alone is competent. However the District: RevenueOfficer is not competent to carryout correction other than clericalerrors without the approval of the Commissioner, Survey,Settlement and Land Records.

Clarification: Section 87 of the Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli doesnot provide definition of clerical errors and errors other than clericalFerrors. The clerical errors are minor errors which do not involvealteration in area, change of classification, or change of name ofthe pattedar.

A few examples of errors, which come under the category ofclerical errors, are furnished below:-G

a. Name of the Pattedar misspelt.

b. Inter-change of survey numbers.

c. Survey no. missing in the survey map.

H

d. Area is calculated wrongly though measurement on ground and records support the correct area.

Since the definition of clerical error and errors other than clericalerrors is not there in the Act, it is not proper to leave it to thejudgment of Assistant Director Survey and Land Records whetherparticular survey error falls under the category of clerical error orerrors other than clerical error. Therefore, the Assistant Director,Survey and Land Records shall send detailed technical report toDirector, Survey Settlement and Land Records, regarding proposederror. This is purely a technical and non-statutory function. Thereport so sent shall be examined at Directorate whether the errorfalls under the category of clerical error or error other than clericalerror and the fact will be communicated to Assistant DirectorSurvey and Land Records. On obtaining clearance from theDirectorate, the Assistant Director shall send the file to DistrictRevenue Officer to dispose of the case at District RevenueOfficers level under Section 87 of the Land Revenue Act, if theerror is a clerical error. If the error is other than clerical error,the District Revenue Officer, shall send proposals to CommissionerSurvey Settlement and Land Records duly condoning the delayas per rules for disposal of the case by Commissioner, Survey,Settlement and Land Records, under Section 87-A of LandRevenue Act 1317 fasli.”

18. In response to the application made by the respondents underSection 87 of the Act and the Report given by the Assistant Director onth5 August, 1994, the Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Recordsthwrote to the District Collector on 19 April, 1995 acknowledging thatthere is no record of any actual measurement of Survey No. 1009 sinceit is a large tract of land. He also stated that variation in calculating thearea apparently in view of the rocky nature of the land could be between10% and 30%. The fact that all the survey numbers had been measured,as mentioned in the Award, was lost sight of.

19. Nevertheless, the Director stated that the measurementexercise undertaken by the Assistant Director is technically correct andthe area of Survey No. 1009 is actually 687.03 acres while the recordedarea is 666.25 acres (which includes the land acquired for ManjeeraWater Works Department). Therefore, according to the Director the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Avariation is to the extent of 20.18 acres. The Director also expressedthe opinion that the measurement error falls within the category of ‘clericaltherror’ as mentioned in the Circular dated 15 October, 1994 and necessarycorrective action ought to be taken.

20. It is not clear how the APHB learnt of the Report of theBAssistant Director and its acceptance by the Director but in any event,thon 10 June, 1996 objections were raised by the APHB before theDistrict Collector to the Report and the decision to correct the revenuerecords.

21. On receipt of the objections, the District Collector referredCthe case to the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records,stHyderabad on 1 August, 1996 to consider rectification of themeasurement error.

th22. On 15 September, 1997 the Commissioner directed the DistrictthRevenue Officer to take action in terms of the Circular of 15 October,D1994 since there was a clerical error in terms of paragraph 5 of theCircular. However, the Commissioner also directed that before passingany orders under Section 87 of the Act the APHB should be heard.

23. It appears that the APHB was thereafter heard by the DistrictthRevenue Officer who then passed an order on 9 June, 1998 concludingEthat in fact the area of Survey No. 1009 was 687.03 acres and that therewas an excess of 20.18 acres that had not been acquired. This was asagainst the claim of the respondents that 11.10 acres had not beenacquired. The District Revenue Officer concluded that the APHB hadno right over the area of 20.18 acres and that necessary corrections interms of Section 87 of the Act should be made.F

24. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the District RevenueOfficer which appears to have been accepted by the higher authoritiesthe APHB filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) underSection 158 of the Act. This Section reads as follows:

“Appeal from order of Revenue Officer- (1) Except asGotherwise provided in this Act for any other law for the time beingin force, an appeal shall lie against any decision or order passedby a Revenue Officer under this Act or any other law for the timebeing in force, to his immediate superior officer whether such TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD v. AZAMUNNISA BEGUM(DIED) THRU. LRS.& ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

decision or order may have been passed in the exercise of originaljurisdiction or on appeal.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (TelanganaArea) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 F., (Regulation LX of1358F.) an appeal shall lie to the Government from any decisionor order passed by a Collector or Settlement Commissioner exceptin the case of any decision or order passed by such officer onsecond or third appeal.

(3) and (4) xxx xxxxxx

th25. On 24 March, 1999 the Commissioner (Appeals) passed anex parte order in the appeal filed by the APHB for maintaining statusquo.

26. It appears that in spite of the status quo order passed by theCommissioner (Appeals) the revenue records were corrected by issuinga Supplementary Sethwar. Be that as it may, the respondents challengedththe ex parte order dated 24 March, 1999 by filing a writ petition in thethAndhra Pradesh High Court on 5 April, 1999. The writ petition wasnumbered as the W.P. No. 7940 of 1999. Among the grounds taken bythe respondents, in the writ petition, was that the appeal filed by theAPBH was beyond time and an ex parte order ought not to have beenpassed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

th27. On 10 August, 2000 the learned Single Judge hearing thewrit petition passed an interim order to earmark the land in possession ofthe APHB and whether it is occupying 661.04 acres or more. Incompliance with the interim order, the Assistant Director gave a Reportrddated 23 June, 2001 to the effect that the area of Survey No. 1009 is666.25 acres including 5.21 acres with Manjeera Water WorksDepartment. It is important to note that the Assistant Director did notreport that the area of Survey No. 1009 was more than 666.25 acres. In other words, there was a turn-around from the earlier decisions takenin this regard. It was reported as follows:

“After fixing the boundaries as stated above the land availablewithin such boundaries surveyed with the help of theodolite(traverse survey) and arrived the total area as Ac.666.25 gts.which is tallied with the recorded area of survey no. 1009 as persurvey records. The survey work is concluded on 11.6.2001.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThe details of land showing physical features within survey no.1009arrived after detailed survey are as under:- ————- A sketch of survey no. 1009 showing the above details is preparedEand submitted herewith.”

st28. On 31 October, 2001 the learned Single Judge decided W.P.No. 7940 of 1999 and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear theappeal and pass appropriate orders. In the meanwhile, status quo wasdirected to be maintained. 29. Pursuant to the directions given by the learned Single Judge,the Commissioner (Appeals) heard the appeal filed by APHB. By anthorder dated 4 January, 2003 the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld thethview of the District Revenue Officer dated 9 June, 1998 and dismissedthe appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of opinion that:

F

G(i) Only 661.04 acres of land was acquired out of the larger areain Survey No.1009;

(ii) The claim made by the respondents that 11.10 acres out ofSurvey No.1009 was not acquired was not a belated claim;

(iii) The correction sought by the respondents in their claim under H

Section 87 of the Act was the correction of a clerical errorthunder paragraph 5 (d) of the Circular dated 15 October,1994.

Proceedings before the learned Single Judge

30. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of its appeal by theCommissioner (Appeals), a writ petition was filed by APHB in the AndhraPradesh High Court and that was numbered as W.P. No. 13927 of 2003.

31. A learned Single Judge of the High Court heard the writ petitionthand by a judgment and order dated 19 April, 2005 allowed it and quashedthe order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

32. The learned Single Judge took the view that Section 87 of theAct was not applicable to the case and as such the claim made by therespondents was not maintainable. In addition, it was held that the claimmade by the respondents does not fall within the category of a ‘clericaltherror’ and therefore the Circular dated 15 October, 1994 was also notapplicable. The learned Single Judge made a reference to the failure ofthe State and the respondents to produce the record prepared at thetime of survey which could have shown a wrong calculation of area. Inthis regard it was held by the learned Single Judge as follows:

“Record prepared at the time of survey is not produced to showthat there is a wrong calculation of area, though the measurementon ground and record support the correct area. So, entry regardingextent of S.No.1009 cannot be said to have been made wronglydue to a clerical mistake. By arriving at the area of a particularsurvey number by conducting survey thereof only, several decadesafter settlement, and without surveying the areas in other surveynumbers adjacent to that survey number, question of the originalentry in the settlement register was a wrong entry as a clericalerror or not cannot be determined. There is nothing on record toshow that lands in adjacent survey numbers of S.No.1009 alsowere surveyed and as to what is the extent found in such survey,and the extent noted in the settlement register.”

33. With regard to the contention that only 661.04 acres had beenacquired out of Survey No.1009, the learned Single Judge noted that adeclaration had been filed by and on behalf of the respondents under theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHoldings) Act, 1973. In that declaration there was nothing to suggestthat the respondents were holding excess land which would have beenso had the respondents been in possession of 11.10 acres. The learnedSingle Judge observed as follows:-

“The contention of Mir Fazeelath Hussain Khan and his heirs thatsince they are in actual physical possession of the land ofAcs.11=10gts in S. No. 1009, even after acquisition by the petitioner,and so they can make a claim cannot be countenanced becauseby the time A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973) and the Urban Land (Ceilings andRegulation) Act, 1976, came into force Mir Fazeelath HussainrdKhan, who originally filed the application before the 3 respondent,was alive, and had filed a declaration under the Act 1 of 1973. Heshowed the total area covered by S. Nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065belonging to him as Acs.1109-92 gts. That extent was deletedfrom his holding as it was acquired and by the order dated09-12-1976, vide common order in C.C.Nos.156 to 159/W/75 hewas held to be holding 0.4083 standard holding in excess evenafter deleting of an extent of Acs.1109.92 gts in S. Nos. 1009,1043 to 1065 of Kukatpally village. If Mir Fazeelath Hussain Khanreally was in possession of or was owning any extent over andabove the area acquired by the petitioner either in S. No. 1009 or1043 to 1065, he would have had to surrender that area also,because even without that area being included in his holding hewas found to be holding land in excess of the ceiling area.”

B

C

D

E

...........................................

“So, it is clear that the family of Raisyar Jung was said to beholding only land to the extent of Acs.349-63 cents in S.No.1007but not any land in S. No. 1009. This extent of Acs.11-10 gts nowsaid to be in the possession of unofficial respondents was notdeclared by them or their predecessors in the declaration underAct 1 of 1973. Had Fazeelath Hussain Khan, who filed the petitionbefore the District Revenue Officer, or any of the unofficialrespondents or their predecessors-in-title, been in possession ofany extent of land in S. No. 1009 by 01.01.1975 they would haveshown it in their declaration filed under Act 1 of 1973. But theydid not do so. For that reason also the contention of the unofficialrespondents that they are in possession of some land in S. No.

F

G

H

1009 and that the extent of S. No. 1009 is more than that wasacquired by the petitioner cannot be believed or accepted.”

34. The learned Single Judge also dealt with the submission onbehalf of the respondents that the APHB had no locus standi to questionthe order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was noted that theAPHB was a party to the proceedings before the Commissioner(Appeals) and therefore it was entitled to question the adverse order.Moreover, when the authorities assume jurisdiction which they do notpossess under Section 87 of the Act and pass orders likely to affect theinterests of the APHB, a right accrues to the APHB to question suchorders passed without jurisdiction.

35. Since the learned Single Judge concluded that the orders passedby the District Revenue Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) werewithout jurisdiction, there was obviously no occasion to decide the questionwhether the claim filed by the respondents was belated or not.

Proceedings before the Division Bench

36. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by thethlearned Single Judge on 19 April, 2005, writ appeals being W.A. No.1311 of 2005 and W.A. No. 1781 of 2005 were filed by the respondentschallenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge. By the impugnedthjudgment and order dated 25 September, 2009 the writ appeals wereallowed by the Division Bench and it is under these circumstances thatthe present appeals are before us.

37. The High Court allowed the writ appeals primarily on twosubmissions. It was held by the Division Bench that a report of thesurvey authorities had confirmed that the area of land in Survey No.1009 was more than 661.04 acres. Admittedly, only 661.04 acres hadbeen acquired out of Survey No. 1009. Therefore, the APHB was entitledto hold only 661.04 acres while the balance had not been acquired andtherefore the ownership remained with the respondents. According tothe Division Bench, there was a clerical error in the measurement areaof Survey No. 1009 and therefore paragraph 5(d) of the Circular datedth15 October, 1994 was applicable and the authorities were entitled tocorrect the calculation error.

38. The second ground given by the Division Bench was withreference to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceilingon Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. In this context, it was held that A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asince the respondents were not holding the land, they could not havemade a declaration as envisaged under the provisions of the said Actand in any event this was hardly of any relevance since Survey No.1009 indicates that the area of that survey number was greater than661.04 acres. However, what is of significance is the conclusion arrivedat by the Division Bench that the respondents were not in possession ofB11.10 acres in Survey No. 1009. Possession of the entire Survey No.1009 was with the APHB.

Discussion

39. In our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court hasCseriously erred in setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

40. It is quite clear to us that the APHB had acquired, in terms ofththe Award dated 10 June, 1968 a couple of thousand acres of landcovering a few dozen survey numbers. The entire land was acquiredand in view of the large area of acquisition even if there was some errorDin describing the area of a particular survey number, that would beinconsequential given the overall acquisition and its purpose for a HousingScheme under Section 22A of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act.

41. In addition, it is quite clear from the extracted passages in theAward, that the entire land in Survey No.1009 was acquired by theEAPHB. There cannot be any doubt in this regard, particularly since theAPHB also took possession of the entire Survey No. 1009.

42. While it is correct that the respondents did submit in theirclaim petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that 11acres and odd had not been acquired, there was absolutely no referenceto any survey number in which this 11 acres and odd was located. ThereFwas no clear identification of the land, no boundaries were mentionednor was the land ear-marked in any manner and in fact even the exactmeasurement was not mentioned. It appears to us that the respondentswere taking a potshot in the dark to somehow or the other retainpossession of some of the acquired land.G

43. If the respondents were convinced that 11 acres and odd hadnot been acquired by the APHB in 1968 it is not understandable why nofollow up action taken by them. They had an option, perhaps, ofproceeding against the APHB for being in wrongful possession of 11

H

acres and odd owned by the respondents and they certainly had theoption of moving an application under Section 87 of the Act. Therespondents took neither of these steps on an urgent basis or any otherstep that might have been available to them in law.

44. All that the respondents did was to wait for another 25 yearsand then move an application under Section 87 of the Act sometime in1993. There was no change in the factual situation between 1968 and1993 except construction having been made by the APHB in pursuanceof its Housing Scheme. The respondents have given absolutely noexplanation for filing an application under Section 87 of the Act aftersuch an enormous lapse of time. What has been submitted is that thereis no time limit for correcting a clerical error and that being so, therespondents cannot be non-suited on the ground of delay and laches.

45. We are not in agreement with the respondents on any aspectof the case. First of all we agree with the APHB that an accurate pictureof the area in terms of measurement of land in Survey No. 1009 cannotbe fully relied upon after several decades and after construction havingbeen made. The records had originally indicated that Survey No. 1009consists of 666.25 acres and we must proceed on that basis rather thanassume the correctness of a measurement carried out after severaldecades.

46. That the unexplained delay in measurement of the area cannotbe relied upon is also supported by the fact that even the revenueauthorities were not quite sure about the exact area of Survey No.1009.According to the respondents, 11.10 acres had not been acquired butaccording to the revenue authorities the entire area of Survey No.1009was actually 687.03 acres with the result that 20.18 had not beenacquired. In view of this discrepancy, we are of opinion that surveysconducted post the notification under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct cannot be relied upon. We have also noted that it has come onrecord that IDL was also in possession of some parts of Survey No.1009. We must, therefore, accept the fact that the entire Survey No.1009was acquired by the APHB and possession taken, regardless of its actualmeasurement and the alleged non-acquisition of 11.10 acres is nothingbut a red herring. Consequently, the question of correcting a ‘clericalerror’ with reference to Section 87 of the Act does not arise.

A

B

C

D

E

FG

AA clerical error

47. In any event, it was contended by the respondents that a clericalerror was sought to be corrected in the measurement of the area ofSurvey No.1009. It is not clear what the clerical error was. If theclerical error was that the area of Survey No.1009 was not 661.04 acresBor 666.25 acres but actually 687.03 acres then the contention is self-defeating. This is because the area of Survey No.1009 would then haveto be read as 687.03 for all purposes and not 661.04 acres. Theconsequence of this correction would be that the acquisition was of687.03 acres and not of 661.04 acres.

C48. That apart, the correction of the alleged clerical error doesnot give rise to the argument that only 661.04 acres was acquired out of687.03 acres. If the correction gives rise to an argument or contention,then it ceases to be the correction of a clerical error but is really thecorrection of a substantive error, which does not come within the purviewof Section 87 of the Act.D

49. Be that as it may, in M/s Tata Consulting Engineers v.Workmen[1 ]Pathak, J. adverted to a clerical error and held in paragraph20 of the Report as follows:

“The jurisdiction given to the [Industrial] Tribunal by Rule 31E[Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957] is closelycircumscribed. It is only a clerical mistake or error which can becorrected, and the clerical mistake or error must arise from anaccidental slip or omission in the award. An accidental slip oromission implies that something was intended and contrary to thatintention what should not have been included has been includedFor what should have been included has been omitted. It must be amistake or error amenable to clerical correction only. It must notbe a mistake or error which calls for rectification by modificationof the conscious adjudication on the issues involved.”

50. Similarly, a clerical error was discussed in Sooraj Devi v.GPyare Lal.[2] In paragraph 4 of the Report, reference was made toMaster Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa[3] and it was heldas follows:

1 1980 (Supp.) SCC 627

2 (1981) 1 SCC 500

H3 AIR 1966 SC 1047

“A clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by anaccidental slip or omission of the court. It represents that whichthe court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the faceof the record and does not depend for its discovery on argumentor disputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation,and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing.”

51. More recently, in Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi (Dead) byLrs. v. State of Gujarat[4] it was held in paragraph 26 of the Report asfollows:

“An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, while a clericalmistake is a mistake of writing or typing error occurring due toaccidental slip or omissions or error due to careless mistake oromission. In our considered opinion, substituting different lands inplace of the lands which have been notified by a statutorynotification under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) [Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976] cannot and shall not be doneby issuing a corrigendum unless the mandatory requirementscontained in the aforementioned sections is complied with. Alandholder cannot be divested from his land on the plea of clericalor arithmetical mistake liable to be corrected by issuingcorrigendum.”

th52. The Circular dated 15 October, 1994 clarifies a clerical error. Some examples have been given and one clarification is to the effectthat a clerical error is where the area is calculated wrongly thoughmeasurement on the ground and the records support the correct area. This clause is sought to be relied upon by the respondents. It must beappreciated in this case that there is no question of a calculation errorsince no arithmetical error was committed as understood by this Court. The area of Survey No.1009 was measured and it was found to be666.25 acres (including the area acquired for Manjeera Water WorksDepartment). The survey by the Measuring Circle Inspector, the checkby the G.D. Inspector and approved by the Land Record Assistant clearlyindicate this. This was sought to be ‘corrected’ by the respondents byclaiming that the area of Survey No. 1009 was much more. A calculationerror would be, in a situation such as the present, an error that wouldappear on the face of the document or the revenue records, as the case A

B

CD

E

F

G

Amay be. If there is a need to carry out a survey and a re-survey, theerror cannot by any means, be described as a clerical error.

53. What makes the situation worse insofar as the respondentsare concerned is that according to them the error was to the extent of11.10 acres but on a survey having been conducted, the error was saidBto be to an extent of 20.18 acres. Surely, such a discrepancy cannot bedescribed as an accidental slip or a clerical mistake or a calculationerror. It can only be described as a major error which ought to havebeen rectified at the appropriate time in 1968 when the Award waspassed or soon thereafter. To notice and make much ado about such anerror after at least 25 years cannot be understood as the correction of aCclerical error.

54. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to K.P. Varghesev. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulum and Another[5] to contend that thethCircular dated 15 October, 1994 is a contemporaneous exposition ofthe true state of affairs as understood by the revenue authoritiesDthemselves and if they believed that a ‘clerical error’ ought to beinterpreted in the manner described in the Circular, that interpretationmust be accepted. The following passage was referred to and reliedupon:

“The rule of construction by reference to contemporaneaexpositio is a well-established rule for interpreting a statute byEreference to the exposition it has received from contemporaryauthority, though it must give way where the language of the statuteis plain and unambiguous. This rule has been succinctly andfelicitously expressed in Crawford on Statutory Construction,(1940 Edn.) where it is stated in para 219 that “administrativeFconstruction (i.e. contemporaneous construction placed byadministrative or executive officers charged with executing astatute) generally should be clearly wrong before it is overturned;such a construction, commonly referred to as practical construction,although non-controlling, is nevertheless entitled to considerableweight; it is highly persuasive”.G

55. Similarly, reference was also made to Desh Bandhu Guptaand Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd.[6 ]The followingpassage was relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents.

5 AIR 1981 SC 19226 AIR 1979 SC 1049H

TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD v. AZAMUNNISA BEGUM(DIED) THRU. LRS.& ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

“The principle of contemporanea expositio (interpreting a statuteor any other document by reference to the exposition it hasreceived from contemporary authority) can be invoked thoughthe same will not always be decisive of the question of construction(Maxwell 12th ed. p. 268).”

56. It is no doubt true that the contemporaneous exposition of adocument must carry great weight but if that exposition is not inconsonance with the law laid down by the Courts, including this Court,the exposition would not be relevant. We have made a reference toseveral decisions which explain the meaning of a clerical error.The viewthexpressed in the Circular dated 15 October, 1994 particularly clause5(d) referred to and relied upon by the respondents does not come withinthe four corners of the understanding of the expression clerical error bythis Court if it involves a survey and a re-survey as in this case. Therefore,no reliance can be placed upon the contemporaneous exposition madethby the revenue authorities in the Circular dated 15 October, 1994.

57. We conclude that there was no clerical error in themeasurement of Survey No.1009 for all intents and purposes and that inany event, the entire land in Survey No. 1009 was acquired for theHousing Scheme of the APHB.

Section 87 of the Act and delay in making a claim

58. We are also not satisfied with the delay by the respondents inmaking a claim under Section 87 of the Act. The contention of therespondents is that since there is no time limit specified for filing a claimpetition, they could have made a claim at any point of time, particularlyfor correcting a clerical error.

59. It is now well settled that where no time-limit is specified,whatever is required to be done should be within a reasonable period.In Collector v. P. Mangamma[7 ] it was held in paragraphs 5 and 6 asfollows:

“A reasonable period would depend upon the factual circumstancesof the case concerned. There cannot be any empirical formula todetermine that question. The court/authority considering thequestion whether the period is reasonable or not has to take into 7 (2003) 4 SCC 488 at page 491

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

[2018] 4 S.C.R.

Aaccount the surrounding circumstances and relevant factors todecide that question.

In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha[8] it was observedthat when even no period of limitation was prescribed, the poweris to be exercised within a reasonable time and the limit of theBreasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case andthe nature of the order which was sought to be varied.........”. Reasonable, being a relative term is essentially what is rationalaccording to the dictates of reason and not excessive or immoderateon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.”

C60. Similarly, in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v.D. Narsing Rao[9 ]the exercise of revisional jurisdiction where no time-limit is specified was considered and it was held in paragraph 31 of theReport as follows:

“To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frownedDupon because if actions or transactions were to remain foreveropen to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertaintyin human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, evenwhen there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise ofsuch powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation ofthird-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exerciseEof a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanationfor the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely withthe rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revisedare fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonableperiod of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act ortransaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for itsFcorrection to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional powerwould itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vestssuch power in an authority.”

61. Finally in Basanti Prasad v. Chairman, Bihar SchoolGExamination Board[10] it was pointed out where third party rights arelikely to be affected, the courts decline to interfere but if there is anecessity to interfere then the aggrieved person should be heard on merits.

8 (1969) 2 SCC 1879 (2015) 3 SCC 69510 (2009) 6 SCC 791H

62. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, theclaim made under Section 87 of the Act was after a period of at least 25years. This can hardly be described as a reasonable period. There is noexplanation for the inordinate delay and to make matters worse, thirdparty interests have been created through a Housing Scheme developedon the land in dispute or in any event on the surrounding land. After afurther lapse of 25 years it is not possible to put the clock back, even ifthere is any reason to do so, which reason we cannot even visualise inthis case.

Locus standi

Locus standi

63. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents thatthe APHB has no locus standi to raise any dispute with regard to themeasurement of Survey No.1009. We are not at all in agreement withthis submission. A tract of land measuring 11.10 acres out of SurveyNo.1009 was sought to be taken away from the APHB which hadannounced a Housing Scheme under Section 22A of the Andhra PradeshHousing Board Act, 1956 and third party rights had also been created inthis regard. The primary responsibility of protecting the interests of thebeneficiaries of the Housing Scheme was that of the APHB and surelyit cannot be said under these circumstances that the APHB had no locusstandi to participate in the proceedings. In fact, even the revenueauthorities recognised the locus of the APHB in the order dated 15[th]September, 1997. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and LandRecords, Hyderabad directed the District Revenue Officer to take actionthin terms of the Circular of 15 October, 1994 but before passing anyorders under Section 87 of the Act, it was directed that the APHB shouldbe heard. We therefore reject the contention that the APHB had nolocus standi in the matter.

Interference on facts

64. The final submission of learned counsel for the respondentswas that the revenue authorities had come a factual conclusion in theirfavour and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the factualconclusions and even this Court ought not to interfere with the factualconclusions arrived at by the revenue authorities. In our opinion, therevenue authorities had completely misdirected in law in reopening afactual issue that had been settled way back in 1968 if not earlier and AB

CD

E

F

G

H

Athere was no occasion for reopening that factual issue after a lapse of atleast 25 years. That being the position, it cannot be said that the courtsare precluded from interfering in a matter of determination of facts whenthe authorities have completely misdirected themselves in law andexercised jurisdiction which did not vest in them. We therefore alsoreject this submission of the respondents.

B

Conclusion

65. To conclude, therefore, we hold that the entire Survey No.1009 was acquired by the APHB for a Housing Scheme. No parcel ofland in Survey No. 1009 was left out or not acquired. CompensationCwas paid for acquisition of the entire Survey No.1009. The DivisionBench of the High Court erred in concluding that 20.18 acres of land inSurvey No. 1009 had not been acquired.

66. We also hold that it is too simplistic on the part of therespondents to contend that land in excess of 661.04 acres in SurveyDNo. 1009 was not acquired. This is certainly not so and the entire SurveyNo. 1009 was acquired. The submission in this regard is rejected.

67. We also hold that the claim made by the respondents underSection 87 of the Act was hopelessly delayed for which there is absolutelyno explanation forthcoming. In addition, we hold that since third partyErights have been created in the meanwhile under the Housing Schemeof the APHB and there is no way to put the clock back. The respondentsought to have been vigilant in pursuing their claim, assuming the claimwas legitimate, but since they were not vigilant enough, they must sufferthe consequences of their inaction.

F

68. We also hold that the proceedings under the Andhra PradeshLand Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 were of someconsequence but since the APHB has not relied upon the proceedingsunder the said Act and learned counsel has only mentioned it in passing,we do not intend to base our decision on the declaration made by theGrespondents under the said Act.

69. We also hold that the APHB was directly and primarily affectedby the claim made by the respondents under Section 87 of the Act andtherefore had the locus standi to proceed before the Commissioner(Appeals), the High Court and this Court.

H

70. In view of the above conclusions, the judgment and orderpassed by the Division Bench is set aside and the appeals filed by theTelangana Housing Board are allowed. No costs.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals allowed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H